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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never diagnoses, treats, prescribes, or creates an employer-facing health record, it escalates crisis signals to qualified humans, and it is free/keyless with nothing to sign. What 'routes to qualified humans' concretely means is left vague.

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 privacy/read-only framing and the scope boundary are front-loaded, and the cost/signer note is compressed into one clause. Slight redundancy with the annotations' readOnly hint, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the privacy stance, escalation behavior, and scope limits for a read-only 3-param tool. The only real gap is the undocumented category enum, which is a schema problem the description could have patched.

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 67%, with the summary and safetySignal parameters well described in the schema itself (including the don't-infer-from-vague-distress rule). The description reinforces the safety-signal routing semantics but says nothing about the 12-value category enum, which is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 fits.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: it converts a person's own problem description into a nonclinical coordination frame and routes safety signals to humans. That is clearer than the bare name and sets a boundary (no diagnosis/treatment), but it never names a sibling tool (e.g. capacity_checkin, prepare_visit, support_next) to disambiguate within this large catalog.

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?

"Private, read-only coordination" and the routing of explicit emergency/crisis/withdrawal/safeguarding signals imply the context of use, but there is no explicit "use this when / not when" statement and no mention of which sibling to pick instead for adjacent tasks like visit prep or follow-up tracking. Usage is left to inference.

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