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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds geographic scope ('US state') and domain ('therapy or coaching option'), but does not describe what 'appropriate' means or what the result looks like beyond 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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to purpose and scope.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich safety annotations, the description covers the core matching intent and geographic scope. However, it leaves gaps around parameter formatting and return behavior, which are not covered by an output schema or schema descriptions.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that 'state' means a US state and 'concern' means a relationship concern, but it gives no format details, allowed values, or whether either parameter is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find' an 'Empathi therapy or coaching option' scoped by US state and relationship concern. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ask_relationship_expert or get_relationship_assessment.

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?

The phrase 'based on your US state and relationship concern' implies the context in which to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative guidance. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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