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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond those flags: it doesn't say what the output looks like (single match vs. list), whether there is a cost or signup, or what happens when no match exists for a state/concern combination.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Slightly padded by the vague qualifier 'appropriate' and the redundant brand name that already appears in the title.

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 small read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but underspecified: the agent still cannot tell whether it gets a single recommendation, a list of therapists, or a redirect to another tool, and there is no guidance on what to do with the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. It does map 'state' to US state and 'concern' to relationship concern, which is useful, but it omits the 2-letter abbreviation requirement, the 2000-character free-text nature of concern, and the fact that both parameters are optional.

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 ('Find') and resource ('Empathi therapy or coaching option') plus the inputs that drive selection (state, relationship concern). It is clear what the tool does and roughly how it differs from advice-oriented siblings like ask_relationship_expert, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the five sibling tools (ask_relationship_expert, get_relationship_assessment, name_the_dance, repair_right_now, wisdom_score_preview). An agent must infer that this is the directory-matching tool rather than an advice tool from the name alone.

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