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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered — yet the description goes well beyond them. It enumerates the four outcome states (answer text, navigate_only with a link, unavailable for retired paths, stale for stale sources) and adds a non-obvious data caveat that the prices-by-age guide never returns price numbers, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the read purpose, then packs outcome states, the optional question mode, and the price caveat into tight sentences. The state enumeration sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct operational value, with no filler or restated title text.

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?

With readOnly/idempotent annotations and a present output schema, the description carries only the burden of distinguishing behaviors, which it largely does by covering gating states and the price exclusion. What is missing is guidance on what the agent should do after receiving navigate_only, stale, or unavailable — whether to surface the link, escalate, or refetch later.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'exact FAQ question text' semantics of 'question' and the canonical_path example. The description restates the question-parameter behavior without adding format, matching rules, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read approved answer text for one published SimplyGlobal guide by canonical_path') and inventories exactly what comes back: review state, review and source-check dates, and citations. This is clearly separable from search_insurance_guides, which yields paths, and from the plan-detail siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage signals, notably the optional 'question' mode for reading a single FAQ entry instead of the whole guide, and it bounds expectations by saying only licensed-reviewed guides return text. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to call search_insurance_guides first to obtain a canonical_path, and it never names a sibling as an alternative for whole-guide browsing versus single-answer lookup.

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