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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what kind of content is returned (amount, target, deadlines, procedures, pitfalls), the provenance (primary ministry sources), and the acquisition date. It does not mention error behavior or exact return shape, but it gives solid context beyond the bare schema.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then gives concrete examples, and ends with routing to the sibling list tool. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the resource, its content categories, and the source for valid slugs. It could add response shape or invalid-slug behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example slug values and hints that valid slugs correspond to program identifiers, but it does not define the slug format, how to discover all valid slugs, or whether slug must come from the gov_money list.

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 defines the tool as returning details for a single government program: amount, eligibility, deadlines, procedures, and pitfalls, with source and acquisition date. It also differentiates itself from the sibling gov_money by explicitly saying that the list is obtained via gov_money.

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 explicitly directs users to gov_money for the list of programs, which implies using this tool when a specific program slug is already known. However, it does not elaborate on when not to use this tool or compare with other siblings like gov_pref.

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