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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are alphabetical and placement is never paid, plus a safety guideline (share 988). These are valuable but not exhaustive; for example, pagination behavior is not mentioned. Still, it meaningfully supplements the structured metadata.

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 composed of three sentences: a purpose statement, a filtering/ordering note, and a crisis-safety instruction. Each sentence earns its place, but the third sentence is somewhat tangential to tool selection/invocation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids 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 search tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the domain, filters, ordering behavior, and a safety guideline. It doesn't explicitly address pagination or the online_only parameter, but these are fully detailed in the schema. It could more explicitly contrast with search_facilities, but the title and phrasing deliver enough context.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., query matches names, location is substring, specialty is substring). The description only recaps the filter options without adding new semantics, examples, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource as 'ChooseHelp's licensed therapists, counselors, and addiction specialists,' with the clarifying phrase 'the experts who answer questions on the site.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_facilities and transfers expert- versus facility-focused use cases.

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 the tool: to search experts by name, specialty, or location, and it explains the alphabetical ordering. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the phrasing implicitly separates experts from facilities. It also adds a critical safety directive for crisis situations, which is useful operational guidance.

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