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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the risk of answering from memory ('the asker loses a day's work finding that out'), explains computed fields with timezone handling, describes the offEastEnd flag and its required communication, and sets strict rules about not naming unlisted providers. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 lengthy but justified given the tool's complexity. Every sentence contributes, from the list of services to the rules about quoting Spanish and not naming out-of-results providers. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it remains efficient and well-ordered.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior: returns up to 8 records each containing phone, source, sourceUrl, lastVerified, and bilingual text; explains computed fields (next masses, inSeasonNow) with timezone; and handles edge cases like offEastEnd and no-argument calls. Since there is no output schema, this level of detail is necessary and sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: passing the asker's own words for query and town, 'need' as a shortcut vocabulary, and the no-argument behavior where nothing is looked up but needs/towns are returned. This enriches understanding without being exhaustive.

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 is a bilingual community directory for free and low-cost services on the East End, and explicitly says 'Call this for any I-need-help question' with a list of examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering a broad range of social services rather than specific topics like beaches or parking.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this for any I-need-help question' and lists concrete scenarios such as unpaid wages, eviction, medical care, and English classes. It also gives contextual rules like quoting Spanish verbatim and never volunteering safety claims unless the record states them, which clarifies appropriate usage versus alternatives.

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