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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond safety: it returns a benchmark per bed, offers optional gap analysis when actual cost and bed count are provided, cites source data, and discloses per-call pricing. No side effects, but all relevant invocation behavior is covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then return value, example, source, and pricing—each sentence adds actionable context without padding. The size is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (benchmark per bed, optional gap analysis) and when optional inputs matter. It also gives data provenance and cost, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly for a straightforward 3-parameter lookup.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It maps bed_count and annual_cost via 'actual cost and bed count', names vendor context with Epic, and clarifies bed count is per licensed bed. It does not enumerate accepted vendor values or define currency/units precisely, but it adds meaningful semantics to all three parameters.

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?

Description begins with a specific use case ('benchmarking EHR maintenance costs before a contract renewal') and names the exact metric ('benchmark cost per licensed bed'), making it distinct from sibling benchmark tools. The example (Epic maintenance median $4,500/bed) pinpoints the resource domain.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before a contract renewal or evaluating health IT budget efficiency'), which is clear direction. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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