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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is pre-established. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: it is a scope/coverage check rather than an eligibility determination, and it deliberately refuses symptoms or identifying information, which is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the key exclusion and an input constraint. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, boundary, and input limits adequately. The implicit return (whether the service is offered) is clear enough, though it is never stated explicitly.

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% and both parameters are enum-constrained and self-documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that inputs are limited to service and state and adds no format or value guidance beyond what is already present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a listed Bidwell service is offered in a state') and clarifies the exact nature of the check (service scope). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_service_details or get_service_page, so routing between them is left partly to inference.

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?

Provides a clear exclusion — 'not personal medical eligibility' — which is the main risk of misuse given the sibling eligibility-flavored tools. It also states that inputs are limited to service and state, though it never names a concrete alternative tool to use instead.

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