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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining how rankings are computed: coverage from Benefit Schedule and cost from published premiums with filed rate changes. It also discloses that age is the only required input, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains data sources and the age requirement. It is efficient with no filler, though it could be slightly tighter. Scores a 4.

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 tool with 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavior (ranking and return structure) and the data sources, while leaving parameter details to the schema. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, so it scores a 4.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 85% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general usage hint ('pass whatever else the person has actually said') rather than specific parameter meaning, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ranks all eligible VHIS plans and returns three explained picks with a ranked list, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_plans or price_plans, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides guidance on what to pass ('Age is the only thing it needs; pass whatever else the person has actually said'), but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_plans or price_plans. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so it scores a 3.

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