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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: counts are over the whole ~9,100-row list rather than a page, the source is NY OMIG, the tool is keyless, the response names the date field counted, and OMIG's data freshness plus unpublished-field caveat are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with what the coverage view reports, then moves to use cases and count-mode parameters. It is dense but largely purposeful; a few clauses could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it enumerates the coverage metrics, freshness date, provider-type count, date range, unpublished-field note, and count-mode result semantics. This is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: year/date-range parameters trigger a whole-list count, year is ignored when start_date/end_date are supplied, and the counted field is excluded_since (OMIG's exclusion effective date).

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 states a specific resource and what is reported: NY OMIG Medicaid exclusion coverage, freshness, and exclusion counts. It distinguishes the metadata/statistics role from a single-provider lookup, though it never names the sibling ny_omig_check_exclusion explicitly.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: check freshness before a compliance decision, inspect the note on unpublished fields, or pass year/start_date/end_date to count exclusions in a period. It does not explicitly state when to use ny_omig_check_exclusion instead, but the intended use is clear.

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