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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are field-by-field with per-field page provenance, and the agent is told to cite pages. It stays silent on formatting or length of the filed terms, so not a 5.

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 core statement of what the tool returns, then usage guidance. The long field enumeration is large but earns its place by scoping what the agent can look up; only minor trimming would improve it.

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 structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. With one documented parameter and usage contexts spelled out, the definition is nearly complete; only the relationship to overlapping siblings is left implicit.

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% and the single cert parameter is already documented with format examples (F00070 / F00070-06-000-02). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (the plan's terms as filed with the Health Bureau, returned field by field) and enumerates the exact fields covered, so an agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name how it differs from overlapping siblings like plan_coverage or search_plan_terms, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts – 'does it cover X', 'what is the rule on Y', and terms comparisons – plus the instruction to cite the page. This is clear positive guidance, but it stops short of exclusions or naming the alternative tool for keyword-style lookups.

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