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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). Description adds that an open analysis is a policy process, not a coverage decision, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements.

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, second sentence adds important clarification. No unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Description covers what is searched and the nuance about open vs completed. For a search tool with optional parameters, it is fairly complete, though could mention pagination or result format.

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 67% (query and status described). Description adds 'open and completed' which relates to status, but does not elaborate on limit or provide full enumeration. Adds some value but does not significantly exceed schema.

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?

Description clearly states it searches National Coverage Analyses (NCAs) and Coverage Analyses for Labs (CALs), including open and completed CMS evidence reviews. The verb 'search' and specific resources are provided, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like medicare_ncd_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?

Implies usage for searching NCAs and CALs, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or specific contexts beyond the task description.

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