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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: free/nonprofit ranking that cannot be outranked by paid referrals, a verbatim disclosure line for referral-flagged resources, and the ZIP is never stored or transmitted. However, the final three sentences largely restate readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint already present in structured annotations, diluting the added value.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description runs long and spends three full sentences re-explaining annotation hints that the agent already receives as structured fields. That redundancy keeps it from being tight.

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 four required params, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers everything an agent needs: result count, ranking policy, filtering via ZIP, disclosure obligations, privacy, and domain boundaries. Nothing material is missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds parameter-relevant meaning: national resources always match regardless of state, and condition scoping never blends results across conditions. This goes modestly beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns 2-4 vetted resources for a need category within one condition') plus the ranking basis and domain scope, so the function is unmistakable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like find_guides or get_resource_detail, so it falls short of the explicit-differentiation bar.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (need category scoped to a single condition) and when-not-to-use ('Never use for diagnosis, treatment advice, drug information, or symptom interpretation; redirect medical questions to the clinician'). Also instructs re-calling on condition switch rather than blending contexts, leaving little to inference.

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