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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the source and nature of the content (licensed advisers, scheme rules, guidance rather than terms), but says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or what happens when no notes match.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, ending on the key disambiguation 'Guidance, not plan terms'. Every clause carries information, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. But with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation burden relief for input semantics, the description should explain at least the topic filter and the role of brand/question; it does so only obliquely via the content list.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists content areas that partially overlap the topic enum (underwriting, claims), but never explains the topic, brand, or question parameters, nor how they combine to filter results. Two of three parameters are entirely undocumented in both structured fields and prose.

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 concrete resource (curated notes from licensed advisers and scheme rules) and enumerates the content domains (underwriting, conditions, switching, claims, tax), so an agent knows what it returns. It explicitly contrasts with 'plan terms', differentiating it from plan_terms siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from search/search_plan_terms.

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 phrase 'Guidance, not plan terms' implies the boundary against plan_terms, letting an agent infer when to prefer this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated preconditions, and no naming of the alternative tools, leaving usage largely inferred.

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