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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that data is 'source-maintained public' and includes a warning about not providing lead/prospect information, going beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict any 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence packs the object and scope; the second provides a clear usage constraint. Structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 one-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, input constraints, and data source. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use vs. siblings, but overall is adequate for selection and invocation.

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% with an enum and description for the single 'network' parameter. The description reinforces the boundary ('only an enumerated network') but adds little beyond the schema's existing documentation. 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?

The description states the tool returns 'source-maintained public duplicate-referral deadline and reporting-route facts' for Caring.com or A Place for Mom, clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions 'current professional tracking fit', and the title echoes the same. This distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_exit_route.

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 provides clear context on what the tool accepts ('Input is only an enumerated network') and an explicit exclusion ('never provide lead or prospect information'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the boundary is clear enough for an agent to know when not to use it.

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