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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is a listing only and does not verify plans, networks, coverage, costs, or benefits, plus it explicitly rejects member IDs — both prevent the agent from over-claiming. It does not mention pagination or freshness, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two most decision-relevant caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and it does cover the key interpretive caveat and the input restriction (no member IDs). Minor gap: it never ties practice_id to the 'office' concept, so the agent must infer that the enum value identifies which office's policy is returned.

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%, and the single parameter practice_id is never named or explained in the description; 'selected office' only loosely implies it. Mitigating factor: practice_id is an enum constrained to a single value, so the agent cannot meaningfully pick wrong. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (get the office insurance policy and listed carriers) and immediately bounds the scope by saying what the data does NOT represent (plan/network/coverage verification). That boundary distinguishes it from a verification tool and from a generic practice-details lookup.

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?

The description gives a clear negative condition — do not treat a listed carrier as plan/network/coverage confirmation — which tells the agent when this tool's output is sufficient and when it is not. It does not name a sibling alternative for deeper coverage questions, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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