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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: only official dated figures are used, 'otherwise says there is none', promised times are quoted word for word, and document gaps are disclosed. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with scope and enumerates return content in a compact, colon-separated structure. The Hebrew translation is redundant for an AI-facing definition and slightly lengthens the text, but the organization remains clear.

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 agent should expect, and it does so comprehensively: kupa wait figures, insurer fast-track specifics, cost stages, waiting periods, and open questions. Combined with the detailed parameter schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'test' and 'company' parameters, including the Hebrew/English options and the behavior when company is omitted. The description mostly restates this context rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 states the tool handles one medical test at a time and reports kupa wait times plus every insurer's fast-track route, including who decides, how to start, promised times, costs, and waiting periods. This resource ('test fast-track routes') is distinct from siblings like 'specialist_routes' or 'find_surgeon'.

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: use it for one test, with optional filtering to a single insurer via the company parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection among siblings.

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