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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable interpretation that differences are 'policy signals, not proof of unequal beneficiary access or payment,' providing behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, the first immediately stating the purpose, and the second adding important nuance. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.

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 tool's purpose and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior (comparing matches across states) and interprets the results. Minor gap: does not describe the output structure, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 25% (only limit_per_state has a description). The description does not explicitly explain the 'query', 'states', or 'status' parameters. It hints at 'states' by mentioning '1-15 states', but fails to add meaning for required or optional parameters 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 clearly states the verb 'compare', the resource 'final LCD search matches', and the scope across 1-15 states and Medicare Administrative Contractors. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like medicare_lcd_detail or medicare_lcd_search.

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 use for variation analysis across states, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use.

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