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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are verbatim clauses with citation metadata (plan, Part, Section, page, link), which is useful 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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource followed by output shape, use cases and the mandatory-usage rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Purpose, return contents and usage triggers are all stated, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is minor.

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 75% and the schema already explains cert, brand and question with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and 'limit' carries no description in either place. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('search the official Terms and Benefits of the certified plans') and specifies the return shape (clauses with plan, Part, Section, page, link). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plan_terms or search, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it.

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 names concrete trigger topics (exclusions, waiting periods, limits, room class rules, territorial scope, definitions, renewal, cancellation) and adds a strong directive: 'Never state what a plan says without it.' This gives clear context for when to reach for it, though it does not name an alternative sibling for comparison.

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