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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the dataset and input factors but does not disclose output format, units, or edge cases. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds only limited behavioral detail beyond what the annotations provide.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Estimate'). Every word contributes to explaining the purpose and data source, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers inputs and data source, and the annotations provide safety context. However, with no output schema, it does not specify what the estimate returns (e.g., total cost, annual cost, currency), which is a notable gap for a calculation tool. It is reasonably complete but not fully self-contained.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description restates the inputs (state, care type, years, inflation) but does not add new semantic meaning or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('estimate') and a clear resource ('long-term care cost') while naming key inputs (state, care type, years, annual inflation) and the data source (Sandwich's CareScout 2025 dataset). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel or search_care_resources, which serve different purposes.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does; there is no mention of when to prefer this over search_care_resources or other tools. Usage is implied by the function name but not explicitly guided.

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