ChooseHelp Treatment Directory

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

With readOnlyHint annotation already indicating a safe read, the description adds useful context: it lists the fields returned and notes that contact details reside on the linked profile page, not in the response. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of contents and a clarifying note about contact details. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope, contents, and a limitation (contact details not returned). It is complete without being verbose.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (username) with its description 'Expert username from search_experts'. The tool description repeats this source but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it returns the full public profile for one therapist/expert by username, listing specific content areas. It distinguishes from siblings like search_experts (which returns lists) and get_facility (which is facility-focused).

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?

The description indicates the username comes from search_experts, implying its use after searching for an expert. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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?

readOnlyHint:true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'published' details, which hints that only published data is returned, but doesn't disclose response structure, error behavior, or whether the id must be active/published. This is modest additional context but not rich.

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?

Perfectly concise: one sentence that front-loads the resource ('Full published details'), specifies the identifier type ('numeric id'), and provides the source ('as returned by search_facilities'). Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the entity, the key, and how to obtain the key. A minor gap is not listing what 'full details' actually include, but this is likely acceptable for a facility object.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description 'Numeric facility id' for the only parameter. The tool description merely repeats 'numeric id' without adding extra meaning like constraints, examples, or source of the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it returns full published details for one facility by its numeric id, with 'one facility' distinguishing it from search_facilities and the mention of 'facility' distinguishing it from get_expert. The verb 'get' plus resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'as returned by search_facilities' gives clear workflow context that this is the follow-up to a search. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the content (slugs, display names, directory URLs) and its role as a reference for search_facilities. No destructive behavior needs disclosure, and the description goes beyond merely repeating the annotation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and quickly communicates the tool's purpose and relationship to search_facilities. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states exactly what is returned (slugs, display names, directory URLs) and why it is useful (for search_facilities). It doesn't mention edge cases or formatting, but those are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters and instead clarifies the output content, which is the only relevant semantic information for this tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'facility-type slugs' with display names and directory URLs. It also explicitly ties the output to search_facilities, distinguishing this tool from the sibling tools that perform searches or fetch individual records.

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?

The description clearly states that the facility-type slugs are 'accepted by search_facilities,' telling the agent when to use this tool (to obtain valid slugs for searching). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple reference tool.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral traits: results are alphabetical and placement is never paid, providing transparency about result ordering. It also includes a critical safety directive about sharing the 988 crisis line, which guides agent behavior in sensitive situations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states purpose and filtering, the second covers the crisis safety note. It is front-loaded with the primary use and every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations declare readOnlyHint, the description is mostly complete. It implies the return of a list via 'results are alphabetical' and provides safety context, though it doesn't explicitly state return structure or pagination beyond what the schema's page parameter already describes.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with examples. The description only reiterates a subset (name, specialty, location) and does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching ChooseHelp's licensed therapists, counselors, and addiction specialists. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('experts'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_facilities and get_expert by focusing on expert search with filtering.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching experts with filters) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage via the title and description, but lacks direct 'when-not-to-use' guidance or references to sibling tools.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation is complemented by valuable behavioral disclosures: neutral ordering (never paid placement) and the safety protocol to share 988 in a crisis. These go beyond the annotation and help the agent understand trustworthiness and appropriate action.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, filters, and a safety directive. It's front-loaded with the core action, avoids fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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 readOnlyHint, a full output schema, and 100% parameter documentation, the description still adds meaningful context: it explains the directory scope, neutral ranking, and crisis protocol. This is sufficient for a search tool with no required parameters.

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% with descriptive parameter details and examples. The description merely summarizes the filters (state, city, facility type, name query) without adding new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource (ChooseHelp's directory of addiction-treatment and mental-health facilities) and the action (search), and explicitly lists filter criteria. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_facility (single facility retrieval) and search_experts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The context is clear: use this to search facilities in the directory, with filter options. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when-not-to-use, but it does provide a special-case guideline (crisis handling). This is strong context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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