Explain determination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a permission requirement (caseworker scope) and describes the output style (plain, step-by-step). It doesn't mention side effects, but the nature of 'explain' implies read-only behavior, which is acceptable.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information (what it does, prerequisite, source of ID).

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and integration guidance. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 schema has no description for determination_id, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter is a prior determination id returned by check_program_eligibility, giving practical provenance and usage context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'a plain, step-by-step trace of a prior determination' and lists what the trace contains (rules fired, inputs, citations). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_program_eligibility.

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 states the prerequisite (caseworker scope) and instructs the user to use the determination_id from check_program_eligibility, which implies when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides strong contextual guidance.

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