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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting that the route is 'maintained' (curated, not dynamic) and that personal information should never be provided, which clarifies data handling expectations. No contradiction with 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place by clarifying the scope ('one supported... network') and the privacy constraint ('never provide personal 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, its maintained/privacy nature, and the input constraint. It lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and richness of other structured fields.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter sourceId with an enum and explicit description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely restates that input is a network identifier, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource: a 'maintained stop-contact and privacy route' for 'one supported senior-care referral network.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_info, get_location, and get_services by focusing on a unique route object, and the scope ('one... network') is explicit.

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 implies the tool is used when you need an exit route for a referral network, and it gives an explicit input constraint ('Input is only a network identifier; never provide personal information'). However, it does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than fully explicit.

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