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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that only *published* providers are returned, which is a useful scoping detail, but says nothing about pagination behavior (cursor), empty results, or the typo-fallback behavior beyond what the schema notes. With annotations carrying most behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb, the scoped resource ('published ADHD evaluation providers'), and the filter axes. No filler, nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

For a read-only search with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it never describes the response shape (a listing collection with a page/cursor object) or how to page through results, and the sibling relationship is left implicit. The rich schema compensates on parameters, but an agent still lacks return-value orientation.

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%, including typos-fallback behavior, sort defaults, pagination contract, and the parent-slug matching rule for category. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb (search) plus resource (published ADHD evaluation providers) and the main filters (text, place, category). It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings, but siblings are all retrieval-by-id or list-* tools, so the search scope is fairly evident. Not quite a 5 because it doesn't route against any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search' and the filter parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_listing for a known provider. Acceptable minimum but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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