check_elfa_eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculations performed but does not state that it is a read-only operation, what assumptions are made (e.g., which income field is used when both annualIncome and monthlyIncome are provided), or what happens if required inputs are missing. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is not fully transparent about behavioral constraints.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the primary purpose. It efficiently lists the key outputs without unnecessary detail, though the sentence is slightly long due to the enumeration of tiers and amounts.

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?

The description covers the main outputs (eligibility, tier, subsidy, co-pay) but lacks guidance on input requirements, such as whether annualIncome or monthlyIncome is needed, or if both are accepted. Given there is no output schema, more explicit usage context would be helpful. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a calculation tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or which are required for a valid calculation. It remains at the baseline level expected when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'calculate' and the specific resource (San Francisco Early Learning For All financial assistance eligibility), and enumerates the exact outputs (income tier, monthly subsidy amounts, co-pay rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_elfa_rates_and_rules, which likely provides general rate information rather than per-family calculations.

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 implies usage (for calculating a family's eligibility) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like get_elfa_rates_and_rules, leaving the agent to infer from tool names and context.

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