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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned record (contents, deadline, documents, contact, legal basis), which is meaningful for a single-record lookup with no output schema. It does not mention missing-id or not-found behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the returned fields, then adds the routing instruction, all in two sentences with no filler. The line is short enough to scan quickly despite the bilingual duplication that serves the tool's Korean-language domain.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers both the calling contract (the id from benefits_match) and the essential return contents, so nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret the result is missing. The annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 100% and the schema already states the parameter is the service ID from benefits_match, so the description's 'Use the id returned by benefits_match' largely restates the schema. No additional syntax, format, or validity constraints are provided, which matches the baseline for a well-documented single parameter.

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 ('See ... one benefit programme') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (benefits, deadline, documents, contact, legal basis). It also names the sibling it depends on (benefits_match), so an agent can distinguish it from the search-style match tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use the id returned by benefits_match, which establishes the correct call sequence and the alternative tool for discovery. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what to do if no id is available, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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