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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by explaining that location filters match head office, not outlets, and that include_revoked defaults to excluding revoked providers. It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effect behavior explicitly or addressing ordering/pagination, but the search semantics and defaults are clearly communicated.

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 organized with a clear summary, a brief rationale for head-office matching, and a labeled Args section. Every parameter gets a one-line explanation. The 'Phase 0' mention is mildly extraneous but not harmful; the structure remains efficient and scannable.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: filter semantics, defaults, and valid-value sourcing. It is slightly ambiguous about how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR) and does not mention result ordering, but the output schema plus the detailed parameter list make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 fully compensate. It defines every parameter with operational meaning: case-insensitive substring for suburb, exact match for state, exact 4-digit postcode, exact category match with a pointer to list_service_categories(), the default behavior of include_revoked, and the limit default. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search NDIS providers by head office location and/or service category.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings get_provider (singular lookup) and list_service_categories (enumerating categories) by framing it as a filter-based 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?

The description gives concrete context for when to use the tool: it explains that head-office location is preferred over outlet addresses due to sparse data (~54% populated), and it directs callers to list_service_categories() for valid service_category values. It does not explicitly contrast with get_provider, but the search-vs-singleton distinction is implied strongly enough.

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