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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about what information is covered (identity, services, insurance, etc.), which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, length, or any other behavioral nuances beyond being an informational catalog.

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 sentence with a dense, well-organized list of content categories. Every word earns its place, and the 'Combined site-info + services catalog' phrase adds clarity without padding.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description adequately enumerates the coverage areas. It is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it, and no output schema is needed given the simple nature.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately does not attempt to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 lists the resource scope (identity, services, states, insurance, ages, crisis resources, links) and labels it as a combined site-info + services catalog. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the title 'Learn About Emora Health' and the content list make the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for general Emora Health information through its content list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_crisis_resources or search_content. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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