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.