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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations: it discloses that ambiguous documents yield both readings and that missing refund numbers are explained. It also warns that only checked covers are included and that the person's own policy is authoritative. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 portion is front-loaded and efficient, but the Hebrew paragraph duplicates the same content without adding new information for an agent. This redundancy prevents a higher score, though the structure remains readable and the key usage context appears early.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so well: per insurer/cover, both numbers when the document is ambiguous, and reasons when no number is present. The main gap is not explicitly describing the optional company parameter's behavior, but the schema already covers that.

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%, so the input schema already describes all four parameters. The description adds light context by tying service to 'private test or specialist visit' and amount_paid to the refund calculation, but it does not need to repeat schema details. This meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 names the operation: for a private test or specialist visit and an amount paid, it reports what the documents allow saying about a refund, per insurer and cover. It also describes how ambiguity is handled ('both numbers') and why a number may be absent. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like search or get_cover, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when there is a private test or specialist visit and an amount paid. It also states a scope limitation: only covers that were checked, and the person's own policy decides. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as get_cover or search, leaving some routing to inference.

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