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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes the lowest published price and number of providers for each assessment type, helping an agent anticipate the response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, scope, and expected output without filler. Every clause adds information, and the structure supports quick parsing by an agent.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by noting that this is the all-types overview and pointing to sibling tools for provider-specific lookups, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The schema coverage is complete because there is nothing to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('ADHD & autism assessment types compared on NeuroCompare'), including scope qualifiers (adult/child, ADHD/autism) and key output fields (lowest published price, provider count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on providers or related services.

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 implies its use: it provides an overview of assessment types with pricing and provider counts. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_providers, get_provider, or related_services, and it offers no exclusion conditions.

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