GTH Intelligence - Substance Abuse Treatment Finder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, reducing the burden. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: 'Supports partial name matching — returns the best match if multiple facilities contain the query string.' This is beyond the annotations, though 'best match' is slightly vague about tie-breaking.

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 no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and deliverables, the second explains matching behavior, the third places it in the workflow. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, content, matching behavior, and usage context. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, nothing essential is missing for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'name' parameter with matching semantics ('Supports partial name matching — returns the best match if multiple facilities contain the query string'), which is not fully expressed in the schema. It explains the behavior, not just the type/format, adding value over structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full profile of one specific treatment facility' and enumerates exact contents (address, phone, programs, insurance, SAMHSA status, browse URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_facilities by specifying drill-down intent, making it unmistakable among siblings.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use after search_facilities when the user wants to drill into a named facility.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and implicitly when not to (i.e., not for searching or listing). It names the alternative tool, satisfying the top guideline bar.

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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the return format ('markdown-formatted explanations') and that it covers 'all' types. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose and action, no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clarifies what the user gets: definitions, duration, intensity, typical fit, and specific program types. This is complete for a zero-parameter reference tool and requires no further elaboration.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none 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?

The description starts with a specific verb ('Get definitions') and clear resource ('all treatment program types'), enumerating the specific types. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_facilities by focusing on definitions rather than facility lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user is uncertain which treatment_type to pass to search_facilities, or asks 'what's the difference between X and Y'.' This provides direct decision guidance and implies the alternative (search_facilities) without needing to name it.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds complementary value by disclosing the return shape ('array of {state, stateAbbr, count}') and the fact that it lists only states with data. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then return format, then use case. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool, the description fully conveys the return format and intended usage context. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the output structure, which is the only relevant semantic detail. No parameter explanations are needed.

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 tool's function: 'List every US state that has treatment facility data in this directory, with per-state facility counts.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every US state'), and the scope ('with per-state facility counts') distinguishes it from siblings like search_facilities and get_facility_detail.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use as a first step when the user's location is unclear, or to discover where coverage exists before calling search_facilities.' It also names the alternative tool (search_facilities), providing clear decision guidance.

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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the curated directory size and specifies the exact return fields, which goes beyond the schema. It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but the annotations lower the bar, and the added context earns a 4.

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, each earns its place: the first defines the directory and filters, the second lists return fields, and the third gives usage flow with sibling tools. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the read-only/idempotent annotations and a fully descriptive schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, sibling tool flow, and prerequisite conditions. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without an output schema.

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%, so all five parameters have detailed descriptions with types, defaults, and examples. The tool description recaps search dimensions but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('12,338 curated, SAMHSA-sourced US addiction treatment facility directory') with identifiable filters (state, city, treatment type, insurance). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing to get_facility_detail for full profiles and list_states for location coverage.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to find candidates — then call get_facility_detail for one facility's full profile.' It also instructs when to call list_states first if location coverage is uncertain. This clearly states when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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