Foundations Counseling

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the dual response mode (verified status with date when Foundations has published one, otherwise the website's scheduling statement) and the caveat that results are not counselor-specific. It stops short of describing pagination, rate limits, or failure modes, but there is little of that to disclose for a single-filter lookup.

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 zero waste: scope first, response behavior second, the counselor-availability caveat last. Each sentence adds information an agent needs before calling or interpreting results.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by describing both possible result shapes. Combined with the annotations covering safety and the fully documented parameter, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description merely echoes the optional office/online narrowing without adding format or selection guidance beyond what the enum provides; the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'Practice-level availability for new clients', with the optional office/online narrowing named up front. It also explicitly rules out the neighboring concept ('Availability is never published for individual counselors'), so an agent can separate it from get_counselor and find_counselors without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for use (practice-level, new clients, optionally one office or online) and an explicit exclusion ('never published for individual counselors'), plus a fallback route (confirm by phone or the booking link). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to use instead for individual-counselor questions, so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add data-scope context — and it does, by guaranteeing that availability is 'never published per counselor', which prevents an agent from retrying or expecting an availability field. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or error context, but the annotations carry most of that burden.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the availability caveat. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to describe the return shape. Wording is tight with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and the sole required parameter is fully specified by the schema enum. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage plus a 26-value enum and the schema note 'Counselor id from find_counselors.', the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about the id (no format, no source tool, no failure behavior for unknown ids), so this is the baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource ('Published profile for one Foundations counselor') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (credentials, offices, ages/populations, therapies, education, services, profile URL), so an agent knows the payload without opening the schema. It also carves out a boundary against the availability siblings. It stops short of a crisp verb like 'Retrieve', which keeps it out of the top band.

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 exclusion 'Does not include availability' implicitly routes availability questions to check_availability, which is useful negative guidance. However, there is no positive when-to-use framing and no explicit pointer to find_counselors as the id source inside the description itself (that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that content is published verbatim by the practice (a static, authoritative snapshot), but says nothing about freshness, caching, or return format.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the highest-value items (fee, insurance) and flows through payment methods to cancellation policy. It is somewhat list-heavy but every clause maps to a real returned field, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so comprehensively for a zero-parameter read tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as the absence of any note on output structure or whether the data can go stale.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing to document. The description instead adds value by defining what the no-argument call yields, which is the relevant 'parameter' semantics here.

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 enumerates the exact content the tool returns (session fee, insurance model, payment methods, cancellation policy) and pins the source as "exactly as Foundations publishes them," so an agent knows this is the authoritative fees/insurance lookup. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like get_practice_info or how_to_start, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., get_practice_info for general practice details, how_to_start for onboarding). Usage is only implied by the content list, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable return-content context—exactly which fields and which counselors-per-office data come back—which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's subject and scope, with no filler or repetition. Every item in the list corresponds to useful returned data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only static information tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains what data will be returned. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema confirms there are no inputs to document, and the description appropriately focuses on what the call returns.

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 precise resource and scope: the four named Foundations offices and the attributes returned (addresses, hours, phone, map links, counselors per office). This is far more specific than the bare name, but it never explicitly differentiates from sibling tools such as get_practice_info or find_counselors.

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 description only lists content; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives among the many sibling info-retrieval tools. The intended usage is only implicit from the content itself.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the substantive part those annotations cannot: the exact content domains returned (offerings, non-offerings, payment model, languages, intake), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose whether the data is static or how fresh it is.

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 entity and purpose are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact content list and a one-line usage rule. It is a single dense sentence plus a short imperative, with no filler, though the mid-sentence enumeration is list-heavy.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it enumerates the content domains plus the routing rule. What is missing is minor: freshness/static-vs-live nature of the overview and whether it links to the more specific sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description's topic list does not need to map to arguments and does not create schema confusion.

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 names a concrete resource (Facts about Foundations Counseling LLC) and enumerates its scope — offerings, exclusions, payment model, languages, intake. It is clearly distinguishable from narrow siblings like get_fees_and_insurance or get_locations, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation stays implicit.

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?

"Use this first for general questions about the practice" gives a clear routing rule and implies the narrow siblings handle the specific topics it only summarizes. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful context by disclosing what the payload contains - phone number, booking link, scheduling hours, and the Counselor Match Guarantee - which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the ordered steps, with the included content listed afterward. No redundant or filler text.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent both the process and the contents of the response, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor omission: it does not indicate whether related topics (fees, locations) live here or in sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 resource (steps to begin counseling at Foundations) and enumerates the actual sequence: reach out, get matched, free consultation, begin sessions. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_fees_and_insurance or get_practice_info.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'how do I get started' questions. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, nor any mention of how it relates to get_practice_info or find_counselors, which could overlap.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the result is grouped into who/what/how, discontinued offerings (group therapy, seminars) are absent, and returned ids are reusable elsewhere.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler, and each clause (grouping taxonomy, id reuse, exclusions) carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the grouping, the presence of a usable id per service, and the exclusion of discontinued items. For a simple single-parameter list tool, nothing needed to call 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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does gloss the taxonomy ('who we help, what we help with, how we work') which clarifies three of the enum values, but it never explains the 'other' category the schema exposes.

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+resource (lists all talk-therapy services) and immediately bounds scope: grouped by website taxonomy and excluding discontinued offerings. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming find_counselors and get_service as consumers of the ids it returns.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that ids are 'usable with find_counselors and get_service' signals this is the discovery/entry-point tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use get_service instead if…' guidance against the sibling get_service.

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

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 safety is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations cannot carry: the material is practice-reviewed educational content, not clinical advice, and results include review dates so freshness is assessable. No rate limits or failure behavior are mentioned, 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?

Three sentences with zero filler: scope first, then return shape, then usage condition. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields (titles, summaries, URLs, review dates), which is exactly what an output schema would otherwise provide. With only two fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself gives the query format examples and the 1-10 limit with a default of 5. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and a well-scoped resource (Foundations' Healing Library of mental health articles), and further qualifies the content as practice-reviewed general education rather than clinical advice. The sibling tools are all practice-logistics tools (fees, counselors, locations), so there is no ambiguity to resolve and the agent can route correctly on name alone.

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?

"Use for informational questions where a reviewed article helps" gives a clear when-to-use condition and the parenthetical exclusion of clinical advice sets a boundary. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when this should not be used (e.g., scheduling or crisis handling), which keeps it below a 5.

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