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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses the fallback path for unsupported forms ('it says so and lists the forms it covers'), the return shape (explanation plus a link to the full guide), and an explicit advisory disclaimer. Return-value detail is partly redundant with the output schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the supported-form catalog, with behavioral caveats and the terms URL trailing. The long inline enumeration and the terms link add bulk, but each clause carries real routing or scope information rather than filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: coverage set, unsupported-input handling, scope limits, and disclaimers are all stated, and return contents are named without over-explaining.

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% and the single parameter already has an example, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by enumerating the concrete accepted form numbers and names, which is effectively a soft value list the schema does not provide, telling the agent what valid input looks like beyond minLength/maxLength.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Explain what a common construction insurance endorsement does') and immediately enumerates the exact covered forms (CG 20 10, CG 20 33, CG 20 37, CG 20 38, waiver of subrogation, primary and non-contributory, CG 25 03). It also states the out-of-scope behavior explicitly. An agent can tell precisely what this tool will and won't answer.

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?

Gives a clear input instruction ('Send the form number or name') and a clear scope boundary: it explains standard forms in general, not a specific policy, and is not broker advice. What's missing is any routing against the sibling tools (check_coi, get_coi_check_result), so an agent must infer that this is the explanatory complement to those checking tools.

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