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.