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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: ranking order (clinical fit, then availability and reviews), that each result carries a next opening, ten-per-page pagination, and graceful degradation when a state or insurance plan is unsupported. It stops short of describing error handling or auth/rate-limit characteristics, so a 4 rather than 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?

Front-loads the pipeline step and the one-line purpose, then use/don't-use, then a compact example. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the salient return facts (next opening, pagination via next_offset, ten per page) and the multi-step workflow context. It does not enumerate the full result shape, but for a read-only search that is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies that concerns drive ranking rather than filtering ('ranked by clinical fit when concerns are given') and supplies a worked example showing a realistic five-parameter combination. That is genuine added value on top of 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 and resource ('Returns Emora clinicians who fit a state, service, insurance and child's age') plus the ranking logic, and names the sibling it is not (recommend_care). An agent can distinguish it from get_availability or search_care_resources without opening a schema.

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 eligible clinician types and the qualifying condition, while 'Don't use when' routes to recommend_care when concerns are unknown. This is a complete when/when-not/alternative triad.

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