HomelessHelper

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral content on top: output is a county list with per-county counts, only counties that actually have providers are included, and the category filter is optional. Remaining gaps like ordering or how zero-count counties behave are minor given the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the scope constraint ('For one state') front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the tool name. The phrasing is slightly compressed/awkward ('For one state, the counties that...') but every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output-less schema, the description does describe the return payload (counties plus counts), which is the important part. It stops short of covering the category parameter's semantics, result ordering, or behavior for a state with no matching providers, leaving a few gaps an agent would want.

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 50%: 'state' is documented (two-letter code) but 'category' has only an enum and no prose. The description does add meaning by clarifying category is optional and narrows the counts, but it doesn't explain the category semantics or confirm that omitting it aggregates across all categories. Baseline 3 given the schema carries part of the load.

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 names a concrete resource (counties) and the payload (each county plus its provider count), scoped to 'one state' and optionally one category. That is far more specific than the bare tool name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings homeless_states or homeless_providers_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 rather than stated: 'the counties that have providers' signals this is a coverage/aggregation lookup, and 'optionally for one category' signals an optional narrowing filter. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling search tool, and no note about what happens outside the listed states.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world lookup, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: sorting by distance becomes available only when lat and lng are both supplied, and results are limited to one state. It does not disclose default page size, result ordering without coordinates, or what fields a provider record contains.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource inventory and then layers filters and sorting. The category enumeration is somewhat long, but nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 8 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description should clarify at least the result shape or ordering behavior. It covers filtering and sorting logic well but says nothing about what a returned provider record includes (contact info, distance value, pagination), leaving a gap for a search tool of this size.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the filter dimensions (county, category, name words, lat/lng sorting) but adds no syntax or edge-case detail; it also loosely says 'words in the name' where the schema covers name, services and address.

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 names the resource concretely (shelters, food, housing, healthcare, support, showers) and the scope (one state) plus the supported filters and distance sorting. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools homeless_counties and homeless_states, but the geographic scope and provider-level result set make its role clear enough.

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 rather than stated: it shows that a state is the base scope and that county/category/query narrow results, and that lat+lng switch to distance sorting. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus homeless_states or homeless_counties, and no guidance on when filters are unnecessary.

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

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 fully covered. The description adds that results include two-letter codes and provider categories, but says nothing about ordering, size, or whether the set is static — modest added value for a no-parameter reference call.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding, and the core subject (the states/territories covered) leads. It lacks a verb, making it read as a fragment rather than a complete statement of what the call does.

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 does the job of indicating return contents: states, their two-letter codes, and available provider categories. For a static zero-parameter reference tool this is nearly sufficient, though the result shape (e.g., grouping of categories per state) is left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to get the full coverage list.

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?

Names a specific resource (states and territories HomelessHelper covers) and the return contents (two-letter codes, provider categories). It is distinguishable from homeless_counties and homeless_providers_search by scope, though the verb is only implied via the title rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a coverage/lookup endpoint to call before filtering by state. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over homeless_counties or homeless_providers_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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