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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: the tool is free, capped at 3 distinct practices per caller per week, and repeat audits of the same practice return the saved report rather than re-running. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded: capability and return value first, then when-to-use, then cost and rate-limit constraints. No sentence is filler.

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 carries the return contract (0-100 score plus prioritized, therapist-appropriate fixes) and also discloses cost and per-caller quota behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or set user expectations is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description notes the website input is optional and that supplying it extends the check, but that merely restates the schema's own parameter description without adding format or edge-case guidance.

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 (checks) and specific resources (Google Business Profile, optional website) plus the concrete output (a 0-100 setup score with prioritized fixes). An agent can distinguish this from get_ariadne_overview and write_sample_google_post immediately, since neither audits a practice's local-search presence.

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 explicit trigger conditions: a therapist asking how findable their practice is, why they aren't showing up on Google, or what to fix first. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without full routing.

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