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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context: facts are quoted from the insurer's published document, and the output includes what the document does not say and premiums as printed. This goes beyond annotations to explain the tool's output nature.

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 English description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and output details. The Hebrew translation is redundant but adds no extra info. The description earns its place without unnecessary padding.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the agent will receive: summary, quotes with page/section, what's not said, common questions, and premiums. It covers the essential expectations for calling the tool correctly. No missing critical info.

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%: both parameters have descriptions, including accepted formats for cover and a list for company. The description adds a concrete example (company 'הראל', cover 'תרופות מחוץ לסל'), clarifying how to specify the parameters beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb+resource: get one cover of one insurer, and enumerates the output (plain summary, key facts with quotes and page/section, what the document does not say, common questions, monthly base premiums). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_companies or search, which list or find items rather than detail a single cover.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific cover, and the parameter description references list_companies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is only implicit.

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