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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it is educational only, not legal advice, and provides overviews and deep dives with typical durations, tips, and do/don't guidance, which aligns with the 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose ('Plain-English guide to the 8 stages'), then explains usage patterns, and ends with a disclaimer. Every sentence is necessary; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, idempotent, with output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, and limitations comprehensively. It includes educational-only disclaimer, satisfying completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'stage' having a description in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the parameter gives an overview and providing a stage number (1-8) gives a deep dive, including what to expect.

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 it provides a 'Plain-English guide to the 8 stages of a VA disability claim', using specific verbs ('guide') and resources ('8 stages'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., 'check_presumptive_conditions', 'estimate_combined_rating') by focusing on process overview and deep dives.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'whenever a veteran asks what happens after filing, where they are in the process, what a C&P exam is, or what to do at their current stage.' It also differentiates between calling with no arguments (overview) or with a stage number (deep dive). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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