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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is advisory phone questions rather than factual record data, which is genuinely useful framing, but it says nothing about volume, structure, or whether questions vary by care type.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries information about what is returned and why it matters.

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?

Single enum parameter plus an output schema means the description only needs to convey intent, which it does. Minor gap: no hint about how many questions or whether the caller should pass results through to the user verbatim.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and its enum fully enumerates the allowed values. The description's 'for a care type' restates the parameter name without adding format or selection guidance, so it neither compensates nor harms.

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 specifically that it returns suggested phone questions for a given care type, and that these are things the public record doesn't answer — enough to separate it from get_facility/search_facilities which return record data. The verb is soft ('suggests asking') but the resource is concrete.

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 phrase 'The public record does not answer these' implies the use case: call this when facility record data is insufficient. However, it never explicitly says when to use it versus compare or get_facility, and gives no guidance on chaining it after a facility lookup.

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