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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the data source (AHCA), return format (per-clinic rate plus statewide stats and effective date), and filtering options. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the bar is lower with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and source, followed by return details and filtering options. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 the simple read operation, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: source, what is returned, filtering, and period options. An agent has all needed information to call it correctly.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description provides some period formatting examples and notes that limit affects only provider rows, but these details are already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns Florida Medicaid FQHC PPS encounter rates by provider, distinguishing from Medicare. It specifies the source (Florida AHCA) and the resources (encounter rate, statewide stats). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fl_medicaid_rates or fl_rate_periods.

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 by explaining what the tool returns and how to filter, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fl_medicaid_rates or fl_rate_periods). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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