Check policy eligibility

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: 'deterministically judge' aligns with idempotency; explains returned verdict types (eligible/ineligible/needs_more_info/manual_review) and the follow-up loop; discloses that free-text conditions are returned as manual. No contradictions.

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 slightly wordy (e.g., 'the KILLER feature') but well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and follows with usage flow. Nearly every sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists, sibling tools), the description covers all essential aspects: how to invoke, what the response includes (verdicts, missing_info questions), and how to drive a follow-up loop. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining the role of each parameter: policy_id (required), profile (inline with optional fields like age, region, income, etc.), and user_key (restores remembered profile). It adds meaning beyond the schema's generic object type.

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 checks eligibility for a specific policy (by policy_id) and distinguishes it from siblings like search_youth_policies (search), get_policy_detail (detail), and profile management tools. The verb 'judge' and resource 'eligibility for a policy' are specific and unambiguous.

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 detailed guidance: use inline profile or user_key, interpret verdicts, handle missing_info by asking questions and saving with remember_user_profile, then re-running. It implicitly guides when to use this tool vs. siblings by referencing remember_user_profile, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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