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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool cites the rule but stops short of advising on whether to file, and clarifies the state parameter is echoed because the window itself is federal. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core return value is stated first, then scope, then an explicit limitation. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with a well-described schema and annotations, the description fully covers what is returned (window, citation, clock counting) and what it does not do. Nothing needed for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already well-documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: state is echoed on the row and does not affect the federal window, while plan_type examples map directly to the parameter's documented examples. This pushes it above baseline.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('the appeal window') with enumerated plan types. Distinguishes itself from siblings by topic (appeal deadlines vs. markup, denial codes, rates, procedure codes) and clarifies what it is not ('does not tell you whether to file').

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain a plan type's appeal window, federal citation, and clock-counting method. Includes an explicit limitation ('does not tell you whether to file'), but does not name alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use it in favor of another tool.

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