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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload shape and one real edge case ('hours is an empty list when hours were not published'), plus the 'published' scoping constraint. It is silent on what happens when nothing matches, whether multiple centers can be returned for one city/state, and on ordering or paging.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the return fields, then the empty-hours caveat. No filler, though the field inventory in the middle sentence is a list rather than prose and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (address, phone, hours, maps link, website, national page) and the empty-hours case. What is missing is behavior on no-match or multi-match results, which matters for an all-optional-parameter lookup tool.

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 three parameters are already documented with examples and the city-vs-state disambiguation rule. The description only restates the keys as lookup modes and adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('published SPG centers') and the three lookup keys (slug, city, state), which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_blog, get_doctors, or search. The title 'Get a center' and the body 'centers' are slightly inconsistent, and 'SPG' is never expanded, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 enumeration of slug/city/state implies the supported lookup modes, but the description never says when to prefer one key over another (the schema's state hint does that instead) and never names an alternative such as search. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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