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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: fields are 'as reported' (provenance caveat) and the response includes the program page and a correction link, which tells the agent how to act on stale data. It omits error behavior for an unknown id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble; the field enumeration replaces wording that would otherwise be padding. Because there is no output schema, the field list earns its length.

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 no output schema, the description usefully inventories what comes back (contact details, care levels, medications, cost help, licensing) plus the page and correction link. Missing only error handling for an invalid or stale id, a minor gap for a one-param read tool.

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 id property already documents the slug pattern with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the provenance of the id ('the id find_programs returns'), which is marginal but not zero.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (everything listed for one program) and enumerates the returned field groups: phones, levels of care, medications, payment, licenses. It separates itself clearly from find_programs (search) and state_overview (aggregate) by anchoring the lookup on an id that find_programs returns.

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 ties usage to the sibling workflow explicitly: call this with the id find_programs returns. That gives clear context for when to reach for it, but it states no exclusions or failure conditions, such as what to do with an id that no longer exists.

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