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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the categories of information returned, going beyond what the annotations provide. It does not describe data provenance or freshness, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and returned data, followed by a clear usage trigger. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning data vintage or source, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the single state parameter is well documented with examples. The description reinforces that the tool works for a US state or DC, but adds no syntax or formatting meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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, 'Get,' and names the exact resource categories returned: private-pay rates, intensive monthly estimates, insurance mandate details, and Medicaid access notes. It also scopes the tool to a US state or DC, making its purpose immediately clear and distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when someone asks what ABA therapy costs or whether insurance or Medicaid covers it in a state. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools cover different domains, so this is a clear usage context without needing sibling routing.

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