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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior; the description adds useful context such as dated figures, exact word-for-word promised times, what the patient pays, and whether the document names the specialty. It also flags the psychiatry exception, going beyond what the annotations 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 English portion is information-dense and front-loaded with the specialty scope, but the Hebrew sentence repeats the same content almost verbatim, adding length without new information. This duplication prevents a higher score.

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 lookup with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the data sources, the per-insurer breakdown, the refund rows, and the psychiatry special case. It does not describe formatting, but that is a minor gap for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the specialty scope and per-insurer behavior but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already documents the allowed specialty list and company behavior.

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 identifies the tool's resource: one specialty's Ministry wait figures, per-insurer online-consultation and fast-track routes, and private-visit refund rows. It is specific enough that an agent can tell it from broad tools like fetch or search, but it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of full 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?

The opening 'For one specialty' gives a clear selection criterion, and the psychiatry note adds a special-case rule. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like get_cover, find_surgeon, or refund_estimate, 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.