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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds valuable context by specifying the source ('as filed with the Health Bureau') and the output format ('with the page each came from'), and instructs users to cite the page. This enriches the behavioral profile 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 long but every element earns its place: it states the core function, lists the specific fields returned (demonstrating scope), provides clear usage scenarios, and includes the 'cite the page' instruction. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically from what to how to when. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only, single-parameter query tool. It covers what is returned (fields with page citations), when to use it (coverage questions, rule lookups, comparisons), and the input requirement (cert from an earlier result). The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return types. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the cert parameter is fully described as a VHIS certification number with examples. The description adds that it comes 'from an earlier result,' which is useful for an agent to understand the provenance. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/format description, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a plan's terms as filed with the Health Bureau, field by field with page citations, and enumerates the specific fields covered. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is for single-plan term lookups and comparisons, contrasting with tools like search_plan_terms which imply cross-plan search.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it for "does it cover X", "what is the rule on Y" and terms comparisons; cite the page.' This clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a broader search across plans is needed, which would route to search_plan_terms.

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