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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the answer is quoted from the official proposal form, the extension requirement is derived from the form's own logic rather than a lookup, and pricing is per-day by age with a max-covered-days cap.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the condition framing, then the three payload items, then the input convention — no filler sentences. It is packed tightly enough that a reader must parse carefully, but nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does: declaration quote, extension requirement, price per day, max covered days. Combined with annotations that cover safety and a two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; unknown-condition behavior is the only minor omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the critical parameter: `condition` accepts a Hebrew name, an English name, or a slug. `age` is only implicitly documented via "price per day by age" — its optionality (only `condition` is required) and 0-95 range are never stated.

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 resource (Harel's health declaration / underwriting rules for a pre-existing medical condition) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the declaration text, whether the pre-existing-condition extension is required, and the per-day price. It contrasts implicitly with siblings like age_rules and coverage_limits by anchoring everything to a medical condition, but never names or explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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?

"For a pre-existing medical condition (e.g. diabetes, stent, COPD, cancer)" establishes the domain of applicability, which is a usable trigger. However, it never states when to prefer this over age_rules or coverage_limits, gives no exclusions (e.g. what to do for a condition with no declaration entry), and does not mention prerequisites for calling it.

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