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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: crisis resources are surfaced on danger, unserved states are reported back rather than silently filtered, and the service type is inferred when omitted. It stops short of describing result ordering or size, but for a read-only tool this is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with workflow position and optionality, then cleanly sectioned into Use when / Don't use when / Example. Slightly long, but each sentence carries routing or behavior information rather than 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return categories (crisis resources, recommended service, matched clinicians with openings, related resources). Combined with the state-not-served caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries its own description (including the inference behavior for 'service' and the fallback behavior for 'state'/'insurance'), so the baseline is 3. The worked example shows parameters used together, which adds marginal value but largely restates 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?

States a specific verb (recommend) and resource (care path from a parent concern) and enumerates what comes back: crisis resources, the fitting service, matched clinicians with next openings, and related reading. It also names its workflow position ('Step 1 of find_a_clinician') and differentiates from siblings like get_availability/get_booking_link.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' names the condition (concern described, next step unclear), and 'Don't use when' names the alternative tools (get_availability, get_booking_link) for the case where a clinician is already chosen. Nothing is left to inference.

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