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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that every row carries the public page URL and the listing's last-checked date, plus the instruction to cite them, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how the 'limit' pagination behaves.

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: capability and coverage first, then the output/citation directive. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded, though the parenthetical need list is slightly dense.

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?

For a 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the resource, the geographic scope, the keyword vocabulary, and the return provenance. Remaining gaps (pagination semantics, the free/no-referral filters) are handled by the schema or are minor.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description's need examples ('food banks, shelters, counselling, legal aid, income help') loosely reinforce the 'need' parameter but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, fitting the 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (community and social services) with concrete need examples and the domain (navigi.ca). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'services_near', which sounds like an overlapping lookup, so sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 never says when to use this tool versus 'services_near' or 'list_needs', nor any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the need/place framing, leaving the agent to guess between lookalike siblings.

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