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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: a guarantee that every result is free and paid tracks are never exposed via the public API, plus the limitation that no audience metadata exists. It does not cover pagination or result ordering, but the annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the free-tier guarantee and audience caveat. Dense but each sentence carries non-redundant information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 4-param search tool the description covers what matters most: source scope, free-only guarantee, query style, and audience semantics. The gap is unaddressed limit/duration behavior, which is minor.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies query phrasing via examples and explains that category='children' is the mechanism for child-appropriate results. It says nothing about limit or max_duration_minutes, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource (finds free guided audio practices) and scopes the source precisely to The Holistic Care's Stillness Library, with concrete examples. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely-named siblings, especially search_mindfulness_resources and get_mindfulness_resource, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear usage context through example queries and an explicit rule for audience handling ('use category: children ... treat other audience assumptions as unsupported'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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