Withdrawal.help: detox and treatment finder

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about data source, closest-first straight-line ordering, and returned fields, though it does not discuss rate limits or authentication.

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?

The description is front-loaded and dense: first sentence defines scope and search modes, second lists result fields and filters. It is longer than minimal but every part contributes useful selection and result context.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: source directory, location modes, level-of-care scope, result contents, and filters. An agent can call it correctly without needing additional return-value documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying ZIP/state/city search modes, one-level-of-care scope, closest-first straight-line distance, and detox/payment filtering. Some parameter detail still overlaps with the schema.

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: find treatment programs in the SAMHSA FindTreatment.gov directory. It clearly specifies search modes (ZIP, state, city) and one level of care, making it distinct from a generic search tool.

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?

Explains the main usage context: search near a ZIP or in a state/city for one level of care, with detox substance and payment filters. It references get_program via result IDs but does not explicitly name state_overview or explain when to choose this over that sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: fields are 'as reported' (provenance caveat) and the response includes the program page and a correction link, which tells the agent how to act on stale data. It omits error behavior for an unknown id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no preamble; the field enumeration replaces wording that would otherwise be padding. Because there is no output schema, the field list earns its length.

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 usefully inventories what comes back (contact details, care levels, medications, cost help, licensing) plus the page and correction link. Missing only error handling for an invalid or stale id, a minor gap for a one-param read 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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents the slug pattern with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the provenance of the id ('the id find_programs returns'), which is marginal but not zero.

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 a specific verb and resource (everything listed for one program) and enumerates the returned field groups: phones, levels of care, medications, payment, licenses. It separates itself clearly from find_programs (search) and state_overview (aggregate) by anchoring the lookup on an id that find_programs returns.

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 description ties usage to the sibling workflow explicitly: call this with the id find_programs returns. That gives clear context for when to reach for it, but it states no exclusions or failure conditions, such as what to do with an id that no longer exists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior in a closed-world dataset, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the actual content envelope: per-level-of-care counts, Medicaid/Medicare/sliding-scale/no-charge breakdowns, and accompanying list-page URLs. It omits data freshness and whether counts are deduplicated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the scope (one state/territory) before enumerating contents, with no filler. The nested clause structure and parenthetical lists make it dense to parse, 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does so in detail: grouped counts, insurance/fee acceptance tallies, and page URLs. Missing only ancillary context such as data source recency or whether the counts are mutually exclusive by level of care.

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 coverage is 100%, with the two-letter pattern and an example already documented in the schema. The description only adds that territories are included ('one US state or territory'), which is marginal over the schema's own 'state or territory code' wording. 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?

The description names a specific resource (SAMHSA-listed treatment programs) and a specific output shape (counts per level of care, insurance acceptance counts, and list-page URLs) scoped to one state. That is clearly an aggregate overview rather than a single-record lookup, so an agent can infer the split from find_programs/get_program. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the phrase 'how many ... at each level of care' signals a state-level aggregate, which contrasts with per-program lookups. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_programs or get_program, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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