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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden — and 'look up' plus the enumerated return fields do establish this as a read-only reference retrieval with no side effects. It describes the shape of the payload (agency, regulator, medical cities, EMR requirements) rather than just naming the tool, though it says nothing about behavior on an unrecognized state (error vs. empty result).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the concrete deliverables packed into a parenthetical rather than spread across filler sentences. Every clause contributes information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must — and does — enumerate the returned fields, which is the main completeness risk here. Minor gap: no mention of output format or behavior for invalid/unknown state values, which matters slightly more given the free-text string parameter.

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 schema already gives slug/name examples, so the description adds little param-level meaning beyond the '36 states + FCT' framing that implicitly defines the valid input domain. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Look up ... Nigeria's 36 states + FCT') scoped to a bounded domain, and it enumerates exactly what comes back (SHIS agency, regulatory authority, medical cities, EMR compliance). An agent knows precisely what this returns without opening the schema, and the sibling tools (calculators, page markdown) are clearly unrelated so no differentiation burden exists.

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 triggering condition is clear: any time a Nigerian state's health-insurance context is needed, pass the state. No exclusions or alternative routing are stated, but with unrelated siblings and a single required param there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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