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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context in the cost-domain exclusions and the eligibility precondition. It still omits what the comparison returns and whether the 'scope_confirmed' gate blocks execution.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and constraints following. Sizing is appropriate for the tool's modest complexity.

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?

Read-only with no output schema, so the description need not explain returns, but it leaves the required 'scope_confirmed' parameter unaddressed and gives no sense of the output shape (per-scenario funding figures vs. a diff). Adequate coverage of scope, incomplete on invocation mechanics.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain the scenarios array cardinality ('one or two', matching maxItems 2) and implies 'as of' currency, but the gating parameter 'scope_confirmed' is never explained, leaving a required boolean fully opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (post-2023 new-build SDA funding scenarios), which is enough to separate it from get_ndis_sda_options at a glance. It does not explicitly name that sibling or state the boundary between listing options and comparing them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear applicability ('post-2023 new-build', 'one or two' scenarios) plus a hard precondition (all residents SDA-eligible) and explicit exclusions (rent, support services, vacancies, individual eligibility decisions). It lacks any when-to-use-this-instead-of-get_ndis_sda_options statement, so it is strong context without explicit routing.

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