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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, so the description's real contribution is scope disclosure: only published fields are returned and availability is never exposed for any counselor. That negative-space detail is exactly what an agent needs to avoid promising scheduling data, though missing-id behavior is unstated.

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 resource, then the field list, then the exclusion. The field enumeration is dense but each item tells the agent what it can rely on being returned; no filler sentences.

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 correctly carries the return-shape burden by listing the profile sections, and it flags the one notable absence (availability). Minor gap: no statement about what happens if an id is not found or unpublished.

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 id parameter carries both an enum of all valid values and a description pointing at find_counselors. The description adds no format, case, or error semantics beyond that, so 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+resource ('Published profile for one Foundations counselor') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: credentials, offices, ages/populations, therapies, education, services, approaches, URL. This reads nothing like the sibling find_counselors (which discovers ids) or check_availability, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

The explicit exclusion 'does not include availability, which is never published per counselor' effectively routes the agent to check_availability for scheduling questions, and the id parameter's schema note ties retrieval to find_counselors. It never names those siblings outright, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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