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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: returns confidence tiers (LIKELY/VERIFY/UNLIKELY), cites governing rules, provides verify-date and administering body, and clarifies it does not file or guarantee results. However, it does not discuss data handling or privacy implications.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, starting with a clear label 'Eligibility-navigator' and immediately stating the input-output relationship. The final disclaimer is slightly redundant but does not hinder clarity.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (benefits with confidence tier, rule, verify-date, administering body). It does not detail how to interpret confidence levels or handle state-specific rules, but covers essential behavioral aspects.

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 description coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing key parameters (income, size, filing status) but does not elaborate on optional parameters like retirementContribution or hasAffordableEmployerCoverage beyond the schema.

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 clearly defines the tool as an eligibility navigator that returns benefits and credits a person may qualify for, with confidence tiers and detailed citations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'missed_credits_scan' by focusing on eligibility for federal/state benefits rather than scanning for missed credits.

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 explains when to use the tool (given household situation) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools. The disclaimer 'never a guarantee; never files for you' provides some usage boundary but does not direct to other tools for specific scenarios.

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