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

Annotations already mark it read-only. The description adds that it only searches 'certified plans' and returns structured clause details with location metadata, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but given readOnlyHint, the bar is lower.

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 action, then a list of use cases and a strict rule. 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, scope (certified plans), output structure, and use cases, which is sufficient for a search tool. It doesn't mention pagination but the limit parameter handles that.

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 descriptions cover 75% of parameters, including examples for 'question' and scoping explanations for 'cert' and 'brand'. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema to explain the arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('official Terms and Benefits of the certified plans'), and output ('clauses, each with the plan, Part, Section, page and a link to that page'). It also lists specific use cases (exclusions, waiting periods, limits) that differentiate it from sibling tools like plan_coverage or find_plans.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it for' followed by a list of plan-related topics, and instructs 'Never state what a plan says without it', making it clear when this tool must be used. It does not name alternatives, but the directive is unambiguous.

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