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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial operating model: the store is loaded state by state, so absence in an unloaded state is not evidence of non-coverage. It also discloses that 'blocked' means the source refuses requests and the service does not evade blocks — behavior an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the usage trigger, with zero filler sentences. It loses a point for a long run-on middle section where the nine-value status list is embedded mid-sentence, making it slightly harder to scan than a separated list would be.

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?

All optional parameters, the no-arg behavior, the state-loading caveat, the match cap, and the full status vocabulary are covered; an output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret an empty result is missing.

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%, so the four parameters are already documented, and the description's mode mapping (status only meaningful alongside state, empty arguments mean whole store) is partly repeated from the schema's own 'With state:' note. The status vocabulary explanation adds real semantic value but is about output values rather than parameter meaning, so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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?

Opens with a precise framing — whether the store holds a hospital's prices and, if not, why — then enumerates the exact lookup modes (CCN, partial name, state summary, no-arg whole store). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings hospital_price_search and hospital_price_compare because it is explicitly posed as the coverage/status oracle rather than a price 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Use before trusting an empty hospital_price_search." It also supplies a natural-language use case ("does this tool cover Mayo Clinic") and explains the no-argument path, so an agent knows both when to call it and which mode to pick.

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