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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior: parallel lookup across three data sources, a single aggregated recommendation, and concrete next steps. It also discloses the possible output categories, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The key use case, behavior, output, and efficiency benefit are all front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, what it does internally, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the described return categories and next steps give an agent enough shape to trust the call. Slight gap: no detail on how optional parameters like state or insurance influence the lookup, though the schema covers their meanings.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces that 'concern' comes from the user's description, adding little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('runs a parallel lookup'), a clear resource scope (crisis screening, provider availability, article corpus), and a defined output (recommended path with categories). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like find_provider or get_crisis_resources, which are single-purpose lookups.

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?

Explicitly positions this as the 'best first action' and 'optimized for the agent's first turn', and notes it replaces 2-3 sequential lookups. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the first-turn framing is a clear, actionable condition.

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