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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add scope. It does: it warns that carrier presence is not plan/network/coverage verification and that member IDs are out of scope — real guidance that prevents an agent from over-interpreting results.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the caveats following. Nothing is redundant, though "No member IDs are accepted" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic without the parameter context.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing piece — what the data does and does not guarantee — for a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter, practice_id, with an enum of one value and 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase "the selected office" implies practice_id selects the office, but it never names or explains the parameter, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the selected office's insurance policy plus its listed carriers. That is clearly distinct from every sibling (appointment links, office hours, practice details), though the description never states the contrast explicitly.

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?

"Listing a carrier does not verify a specific plan, network, coverage, costs, or benefits" and "No member IDs are accepted" effectively tell the agent when this tool's output is insufficient and what it must not be used for. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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