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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is a screening estimate, not an eligibility decision, hospital limits vary, and it explicitly warns not to request names, account numbers or bill details (a privacy constraint the annotations cannot 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and returns, followed by the trigger condition and the data-privacy constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and delivers it fully: percent of poverty guidelines, typical hospital coverage range, federal rule caveats, and next steps. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including the state-code detail and income bounds. The description only restates that household size and annual household income are needed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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 (screen) and resource (household for hospital financial assistance / charity care), then enumerates exactly what it returns: income as a percent of federal poverty guidelines, typical policy coverage range, IRS 501(r) guarantees, and next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_liability, get_coverage, and demo_estimate.

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 a concrete triggering condition: 'Use when a user asks whether they might qualify for help paying a hospital bill,' and clarifies the screening-vs-decision boundary. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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