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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: unprovided facts remain unknown rather than being inferred or looked up, and the call triggers no provider request, document generation or filing. The one thing left unsaid is what a returned 'gap' record actually contains.

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?

Roughly fifty words, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope limits; every sentence carries a distinct constraint. It is lean for a 17-parameter tool, which is a virtue, though the final clause reads as a terse list.

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?

Given 17 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description correctly sets expectations that unknowns stay unknown and that results are gaps not determinations. However, with no output schema it never characterizes the shape or contents of the returned gap review, leaving the agent to guess what a successful response looks like.

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 coverage is 100% and every field—including deprecated aliases and the ownership_relationship enum—is documented in the schema itself. The description only groups the inputs into applicant/property/residence/review-year/VA categories, which is mild reinforcement rather than new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource are specific: it reviews the completeness of supplied applicant, property, residence, review-year and VA answers, and explicitly states the output is a requirements-gap review rather than an eligibility determination. It does not name which veteran-related sibling (check_veteran_relief, verify_va_disability_exemption, audit_surviving_spouse_vet_relief) it replaces in which situation, so an agent must still infer the boundary from the negative framing.

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?

'Free screening; no provider request, document generation or filing' implies the pre-flight/pre-eligibility context, and 'not eligibility, savings, verified identity or filing authority' implies those jobs belong to other tools. But no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule is given, so routing still depends on inference.

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