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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds value by clarifying the educational, non-legal-advice nature and tailoring behavior, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

The description is moderately concise at four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and each sentence adds value, but could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 educational tool with two optional boolean parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and the tailoring logic. No gaps are present given the tool's complexity.

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 the schema documents both boolean parameters. The description goes further by explaining that the parameters optionally tailor the suggestion, adding semantic context not present in the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool explains a veteran's appeal options under the AMA, listing the three review lanes and three Board dockets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_presumptive_conditions or estimate_combined_rating, which address different veteran needs.

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 implicitly indicates use when a veteran needs to understand appeal options after a VA decision. It notes the educational nature and optional tailoring, but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance compared to siblings.

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