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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds useful matching behavior and the downstream find_care.benefit usage, but it does not describe return format, matching exactness, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a concrete usage instruction. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides the essential context and the key sibling handoff. It stops short of describing the return shape, which matters slightly because no output schema exists.

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 query parameter is already documented with examples. The description reinforces that it accepts a word or fragment and shows example terms, but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('official NFZ benefit names') with examples of the categories returned (clinics, wards, tests, procedures). It also distinguishes its output from the sibling find_care by telling the agent to use the exact name as find_care.benefit.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: find an official benefit name matching a word, then pass the exact name to find_care.benefit. This routes the agent well, but it does not explicitly cover when to avoid this tool or mention data_sources as an alternative.

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