Check program eligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is deterministic, returns a decision plus rule trace, policy citation, and ruleset version, and explicitly states it never gives a bare yes/no. It also states the required scope and program constraint. This is strong transparency, though it could mention potential error behavior or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies anything), but for a test/calculation tool, the lack of side effects is implied.

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 three sentences, with the central action in the first sentence, return behavior in the second, and constraints in the third. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 complexity of a full eligibility test with many household fields, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, the required scope, and the program constraint. The detailed household schema covers the input structure, and the presence of an output schema means return format need not be explained. It could be more explicit about how this relates to sibling tools, but the core context for using the tool correctly is present.

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?

The top-level schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds critical semantics for the 'program' parameter by stating it must be 'SNAP'. For 'household', the description implies it's the household to test, and the rich nested schema already provides detailed per-field descriptions. The description adds essential constraint and context that the schema lacks, making it more than a simple baseline.

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 tool runs a full deterministic SNAP financial eligibility test for a household, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns a rule trace and policy citations, not a bare yes/no, and is SNAP-specific. This is a precise, well-defined purpose.

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 provides clear context: it's for a full SNAP eligibility test, requires the caseworker scope, and mandates that 'program' be 'SNAP'. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like screen_programs (by being 'full' and 'deterministic') and explain_determination (by producing its own trace). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or direct users to alternatives for simpler screening, so it falls just short of a 5.

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