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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a meaningful coverage constraint — only regions that have advisors are returned — which prevents the agent from treating the output as a complete geographic list. It stops short of describing ordering or completeness guarantees for specialties/audiences.

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 sentences, no waste. The usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the content description, which is the right order for a lookup tool an agent must decide whether to call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated, and there are no parameters to explain. With annotations carrying the safety profile and the description carrying the usage trigger and content scope, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, and the schema confirms an empty object with additionalProperties false.

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 ("Lists") and enumerates exactly the three resource categories returned: planning specialties, client audiences, and regions. The parenthetical narrows regions to US states and Canadian provinces that actually have advisors, which distinguishes it from a generic geo reference tool and from siblings like get_advisor_profile.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use this when you need valid slugs for search_fee_only_advisors") and a second conversational trigger (the person asks what they can search by). It names the dependent tool directly, so the agent knows this is a prerequisite lookup step rather than a search itself.

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