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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: every row carries the public page URL and the date the listing's own site was last checked, plus a citation obligation — useful since there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: scope first, then the data-quality/citation contract. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states what each returned row contains (URL, last-checked date, citation requirement). An agent still lacks detail on pagination/limit behavior and result ordering, but the core call path is complete.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema largely documents the parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'need' vocabulary with examples and notes there are 18 more needs, but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb (Find) + resource (community and social services) + geographic scope (a Canadian community on navigi.ca), with concrete examples of needs. It does not name or contrast with the sibling tools (services_near, list_needs), so an agent must infer which of the overlapping lookups to pick from scope alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated need categories and the required place/province pairing, and there is a post-call instruction to cite the URL and checked date. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as services_near or list_needs.

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