get_benefit_costs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions returning 'benefit costs by plan' but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or other 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?

The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter and return value documentation. No 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 no output schema, the description explains return as 'Benefit costs by plan', which is somewhat vague. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate, but details on error handling or empty results are 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies employee_id as 'The employee ID (EMPLID)' and as_of_date as 'Optional date (YYYY-MM-DD format). Defaults to current date.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is valuable.

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 retrieves benefit cost information including employee and employer contributions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_benefit_elections or get_beneficiaries, which is a missed opportunity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_benefit_elections for elections). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites provided.

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