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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden — and it largely does: it discloses the result cap, that hours and tuition are only present 'where available', and that claimed-only yields 'more reliable data'. Minor gap: 'Returns up to 10 daycares' sits awkwardly against the schema's limit maximum of 25, and there is no note on auth or pagination beyond the limit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and default city, then filters, then the handoff to get_daycare — no wasted framing sentences. It is dense with parentheticals and reads as one long block rather than separated clauses, which slightly reduces scannability.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and the description covers the searchable dimensions, the default, the result cap, and the expected return contents (hours, tuition). The only missing piece an agent might want is pagination/ordering behavior, which limit alone does not fully convey.

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 six parameters are already documented with enums and ranges; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the months unit ('daycares think in months for under-5s') and the city default, but those facts are already in the schema, so it adds emphasis more than new meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search licensed daycares') with explicit geographic scope (the cities Kyds Activities serves: Lodi, Galt) and a stated result shape (hours + tuition where available). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_programs (broader programs) and get_daycare (single-record detail), which it names directly.

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?

States defaults ('defaults to Lodi, CA'), the filter options available here (age, program kind, setting, claimed-only), and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: 'For subsidy / bilingual / curriculum filters, follow up with get_daycare on a slug.' That is an explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-another instruction.

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