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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so basic safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the result shape (type, title, description, URL to cite) and its sequencing within the explore_information flow. It stops short of pagination or ranking behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded with labeled sections and an example, so an agent can scan it quickly. The enumeration of resource types is somewhat long but each item is informative; overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what each result contains (type, title, description, URL to cite). Combined with the usage routing and workflow step, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the enum values for 'type' and the limit default/max are already documented structurally. The description's example clarifies query phrasing in a parent's own words, but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (searches) and resource (Emora's clinician-reviewed resources for parents), and enumerates the content types returned (articles, self-tests, activities, condition/specialty pages, clinical insights). It also flags its position in a workflow (Step 2 of explore_information), which no sibling does.

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' and 'Don't use when' sections name the exact alternatives (search_providers, recommend_care) and the condition that selects them (parent wants a clinician). A concrete example call is included, so routing is unambiguous.

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