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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses ethics constraints (no client stories, no outcome promises, no review requests, CTAs to the practice site), caching behavior (per-website, 30 days), and a per-caller rate limit (5 new posts/day). These are meaningful operational traits the annotations do not carry.

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 tight sentences: what it does, the constraints/ethics, and the usage context plus operational limits. Every clause carries information, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ethics guardrails, cache behavior, and rate limits. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and understand the outcome constraints.

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 100%, so the parameter's format is documented in the schema. The description adds that the tool reads the 'public practice homepage' and implies the URL must be the practice site, which slightly enriches the schema description. With only one parameter and full coverage, the baseline is a 3, but the added context about what the URL represents earns a 4.

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 opens with a precise verb-and-resource pair: it 'reads' a homepage and 'writes' one Google Business Profile 'What's New' post, with an explicit length range (150-300 words). This is distinct from the sibling tools (auditing footprint, fetching an overview), so an agent can tell immediately what this tool does that no sibling does.

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?

It specifies the trigger clearly: 'Use when a therapist wants an example post or help getting started posting on Google.' That is a concrete condition. It does not name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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