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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive operations, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the list is alphabetical, not ranked, limited to 7 insurers 'we read' (implying a curated static set), and includes page URLs and summary existence flags. This clarifies output characteristics and scope, which annotations do not convey.

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 two sentences, the first English and the second a Hebrew translation. The English sentence is information-dense and front-loaded: it names the exact resource set, ordering, ranking, and output fields. No redundant words; the Hebrew duplication is arguably unnecessary but standard for bilingual audiences, not a structural flaw. It 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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is complete for an agent to call correctly: it states what the list contains (7 insurers, their covers, URLs, summary flags), the ordering, and the selection criteria ('we read'). There is no additional context an agent needs to invoke this tool successfully. The sibling tools are contextually distinct, and the description fully covers the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by absence. Per calibration, with 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; it instead clarifies output semantics, which is appropriate.

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 ('list') and resource ('insurers and their health covers'), and adds precise scope: the 7 Israeli insurers read, alphabetically with no ranking, including page URL and plain-language summary existence. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search or get_cover by being an exhaustive overview of a fixed set.

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 context: it lists what has been read, so an agent can infer it's the go-to for an overview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use get_cover for details' or 'use search for dynamic queries'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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