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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the search operates on 'current' NCDs and that results describe national policy rather than individual coverage. It also notes that search can use everyday product or therapy names, which is a useful behavioral hint beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence is dense with the tool's purpose and example search terms, while the second sentence clarifies the document type and adds a disclaimer. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 combination of the description, schema, and annotations is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The description explains the domain and limitations; the schema covers parameters; the output schema presumably describes results; and annotations cover safety. This is complete for a search tool.

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 fully describes both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with specific guidance, including examples and the acronym-spelling caveat. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond listing 'title, benefit category, or NCD number' as search dimensions. Given 100% schema coverage, the description's contribution is marginal, warranting a baseline 3.

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 'searches current Medicare National Coverage Determinations (NCDs)', directly answering coverage questions. It specifies the resource (NCDs), the scope (national), and the kind of queries supported. It distinguishes itself from related tools by emphasizing 'national' policy documents, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling search tools like LCD search.

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 clear context for use: to find national Medicare coverage policy for drugs, devices, procedures, or therapies. It includes a when-not clause by warning that NCDs are 'not individualized coverage guarantees or medical advice.' However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools like medicare_lcd_search or medicare_ncd_detail for other coverage types, so alternatives are not named.

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