Look up policy

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 transparently states the tool is currently a stub and that it returns an explicit placeholder rather than an invented answer, which is critical for an AI agent to avoid hallucination. It also mentions delegation to a RAG index, adding useful mechanism context.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, mechanism, and current stub behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 the essential aspects: purpose, delegation, and the stub limitation. It sufficiently sets expectations for an agent, though it could optionally clarify the difference from eligibility-checking tools.

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 only parameter is 'question' with schema coverage at 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the question should be a SNAP policy question, which gives some context, but does not provide examples, formatting, or guidance on question complexity. This is adequate but not highly informative.

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 answers SNAP policy questions with citations to the eligibility manual, using a specific verb ('answer') and a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_programs and check_program_eligibility, which focus on screening and eligibility determination.

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 for when to use the tool: for SNAP policy questions, via the policy-manual-rag retrieval index. It also importantly discloses that the tool is currently a stub returning a placeholder, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough.

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