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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that results are limited to 15 programs by default (up to 30 via limit parameter) and include 'full details' (cost, schedule, location, registration status). It does not mention ordering, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for basic use.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists all filter options compactly, and the third describes the output. 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the result includes 'full details' like cost, schedule, location, and registration status. This gives sufficient context for an agent to decide if the tool meets a query need. However, it could be more explicit about the exact fields returned. Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters) and complete schema coverage, the description is nearly complete.

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%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: it specifies that query searches across both name and description, lists example categories, clarifies age as integer years and free_only as $0 cost, and notes the default limit of 15. This adds meaningful usage context without being redundant.

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 searches youth programs in Lodi, CA, and lists specific filter dimensions (query, category, age, free-only, season). The verb 'Search' and resource 'youth programs' are explicit, and it naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'search_daycares' or 'nearby_programs' by its geographic focus and program-specific purpose.

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 description explains what filters are available, implying use when searching for youth programs by those criteria. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search or list tools among siblings (e.g., 'nearby_programs', 'list_categories'), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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