Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's added value is elsewhere: it commits to using only ranges and categories and never names, ID numbers, or medical records, and it promises a list of missing answers. The 'indicative only' caveat correctly frames the output as non-binding, which annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core promise, then privacy, then the missing-input behavior, then the disclaimer. No filler sentences, though the route enumeration in sentence one partly duplicates the rightType enum in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 35-parameter, route-conditional tool with no output schema, the description leaves the conditional structure implicit: it never says that only the fields for the chosen route matter, relying on per-parameter schema notes to convey that. It does cover the return-side essentials (missing answers surfaced, results indicative) adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with per-field descriptions and enum labels, so the schema carries parameter meaning; the description adds nothing field-level beyond naming the four routes. Its useful contribution is the behavioral note that missing required answers are echoed back rather than failing, which shapes how the agent collects input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Rough, anonymous estimate of Israeli benefits') and enumerates the four routes it covers, so the agent knows exactly what is produced and at what fidelity. It does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings get_rights_guide and search_rights_knowledge, leaving the agent to infer the split between estimating numbers versus retrieving guidance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'rough', 'anonymous', 'indicative only' signal this is a first-pass estimator, not an authoritative determination. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any mention of the alternative sibling tools, and the one-route-per-call constraint is stated but not contrasted with any other path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.