get_programme_costs

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that results should preserve evidence dates, conditions, coverage gaps, and warnings, and that missing context must not be treated as establishing eligibility or a travel waiver.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core action ('Read-only get programme costs'). The following caution sentences are concise and relevant, though somewhat boilerplate in tone.

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?

With five undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no explicit sibling routing, the description is not complete enough to help an agent call the tool correctly. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden somewhat, but key invocation semantics remain missing.

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 five parameters and 0% description coverage. The description mentions none of them—id, option, include, release, or scenario—so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'get programme costs.' It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_programme, get_coverage, or compare_programmes.

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 offers caution about preserving evidence and not inferring eligibility, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_programme, get_coverage, or compare_programmes. The selection context is left implicit.

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