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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable scope constraints: no default jurisdiction, no eligibility decision, no tax estimate, no generated form, and no filing. It does not describe return data or missing-fact reporting format, but with annotations covering safety the added behavioral context is solid.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core screening purpose, and efficiently packs scope exclusions into a short clause. The internal 'compatibility alias' framing is slightly opaque but does not bloat the definition.

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?

The description is adequate for a safe read-only screening tool with rich schema coverage and annotations. However, with 17 optional parameters and no output schema, it does not explain what the screening returns or how missing facts are reported, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent invoking it.

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 17 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description categorizes the reviewed information into applicant, property, residence, review-year, and VA-related facts, but adds no syntax, format, or conflict-handling details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific screening purpose: reviewing missing applicant, property, residence, review-year, and VA-related information before a program requirements review. It also distinguishes the tool from eligibility-decision, tax-estimate, form-generation, and filing tools. However, the phrase 'compatibility alias for the shared Veteran supplied-fact screening' is somewhat internal and does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternative.

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 implies usage before a program requirements review, giving some contextual timing. But it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives among the many veteran-relief tools in the sibling list, leaving routing inference to the agent.

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