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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description focuses on behavior those annotations cannot convey: filters are applied as a post-filter over text-search results, and a narrow filter set plus a rare query term can legitimately return few or zero results even when matching resources exist outside the searched batch. That incompleteness warning materially changes how an agent should interpret an empty response.

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 the resource scope, then the when-to-use guidance, then the post-filter caveat and alternative tools — a sensible ordering with no filler. The closing sentence is long and packs the caveat and the alternative list together, which slightly reduces scannability but every clause carries information.

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 seven parameters, an output schema that already covers return values, and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining missing pieces: scope, routing against all five sibling finders, and the post-filter/empty-result caveat. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 carries the load — it explains the semantics of resource_type, category, audience, skill, and age as post-filters over the text query, which is the crucial non-obvious point about all of them. It does not define query (self-evident) or limit, and it does not spell out the enum values for resource_type, which leaves a small gap.

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 ('Free-text search across every public resource family on The Holistic Care') and enumerates exactly which families are in scope, so an agent immediately knows this is the broad/global search rather than a family-scoped one. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the five resource-family finders it is not.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('the general entry point when a request doesn't clearly belong to one specific family') and gives two concrete example requests for routing. It also names the alternatives to prefer when a guaranteed, server-side filtered result inside one family is wanted, closing every routing question an agent could have.

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