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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious constraint — that observing availability does not authorize transmitting context or executing work — which prevents a plausible misuse. It stops short of describing what the response contains beyond the field list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 carries the job of saying what comes back, and it does list roles, availability, and provider/model. It could say more about how availability is expressed (e.g., per-specialist flags), but the core is covered.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is fully specified and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter prose.

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?

Names the exact resource contents — resident roles, availability, and provider/model — so an agent knows precisely what information this returns. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, and it does not explicitly contrast with the nearest related siblings (request_resident, specialist_membership), but the content is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as request_resident or specialist_membership, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. The only usage-adjacent sentence is a permission caveat, not selection guidance.

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