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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned content and noting the program_id provenance. It does not go into error behavior or invalid-id handling, but for a simple read-only lookup the bar is met without being exceeded.

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?

The description is one sentence that front-loads the core action and then uses a colon to list the return contents efficiently. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, one optional), the annotations covering safety, and the description's explicit enumeration of return fields, nothing essential is missing. Even without an output schema, an agent can understand what the call returns and when to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful provenance context for program_id ('ids come from find_programs_by_zip or run_eligibility_scan'), but the state parameter is already well described in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('one program by its id'), and clearly enumerates what will be returned (description, source, how to apply, documents, apply-guide link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by referencing them as sources of ids, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: after find_programs_by_zip or run_eligibility_scan has produced a program_id. It names the alternatives directly and indicates their relationship to this tool. It stops short of explicitly stating 'do not use this for searching or eligibility scanning,' but the context is clear enough.

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