Screen programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is anonymous-safe, stores no data, and is not a determination. This goes beyond a simple read/write hint. It doesn't mention rate limits or detailed side effects, but for a screening tool these are the key behavioral traits.

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: the first is a punchy core definition, the second add essential caveats and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity of screening two programs, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and alternatives. An output schema likely covers the return value details. It doesn't explain what 'citation' means or how to interpret the 'likely eligible' signal, but this is reasonable given the output schema exists.

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 tool description makes no mention of the single 'household' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it fails to compensate. The input schema itself has detailed definitions for Household and its fields, but the description adds no guidance on how to construct the input or what is expected beyond what the schema already provides.

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 screens a household across SNAP and simplified Medicaid, returning a 'likely eligible' signal per program. It distinguishes itself from check_program_eligibility by explicitly labeling this as a non-determination screening, which sets it apart from the sibling tool.

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 explicitly says 'This is NOT a determination' and directs users to check_program_eligibility for real determinations. It also mentions 'Available to the screening scope', which clarifies when this tool should be used (initial screening without data storage).

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