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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, but the description adds substantive domain behavior: specific policy thresholds for parts, depreciation, and total loss. It also discloses that age counts from first registration rather than model year and explains the precision differences among inputs.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition and key policy facts, then describes input modes. It is dense and information-rich rather than padded. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant from an agent perspective, but it is likely intentional for Hebrew-speaking contexts.

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 explain return values. It sufficiently covers purpose, trigger, domain rules, input tradeoffs, and age semantics, giving the agent what it needs to invoke correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful prioritization and exactness context over the schema: plate is exact from the registry, first-registration month is 'YYYY-MM', and model year is approximate. This improves parameter selection semantics beyond the structured fields alone.

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 clearly states the resource and purpose: explaining what the standard comprehensive policy guarantees for a car of a given age. It lists concrete policy guarantees and the three accepted age inputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5 on 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?

It opens with an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when the person asks what a comprehensive (מקיף) policy must give them for a car of a given age.' It also explains the three ways to supply age and their relative precision. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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