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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the response is a bounded sample in API order, warns that zero may represent confidentiality suppression, and emphasizes that the matching-row count is authoritative despite the sample limitation. These details go well beyond the annotations and help the agent interpret results correctly.

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-loaded with the action verb 'Return', and every phrase adds meaning—sample scope, filtering, count behavior, and a data-quality caveat. There is no wordiness or repetition of schema data, making it highly efficient for its informational content.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description covers the essential behavioral quirks (bounded sample, authoritative count, zero suppression). However, it does not clarify pagination or the meaning of limit/offset, and given the large set of medicaid sibling tools, a hint about when this sample tool is preferable could improve completeness. Still, the core is well covered.

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 only 20% (only 'state' has a description). The description explains that the tool filters by state and optional year, but it does not explain the meaning of 'limit', 'offset', or 'parent_organization'. It adds slightly more clarity about year being optional, but fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a bounded sample of Medicaid managed-care plan/program rows by state and optional year, with an authoritative matching-row count. It uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the exact resource type, and differentiates from siblings like medicaid_managed_care_summary or medicaid_drug_state_market by focusing on managed-care plan rows and sample behavior.

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 when one needs a sample of Medicaid managed-care plans by state/year with an authoritative count, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, and no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance is provided.

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