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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real behavioral context: privacy posture, human escalation for emergency/crisis/withdrawal/safeguarding signals, and explicit negative guarantees (never diagnoses, treats, prescribes, or creates an employer-facing record). It does not describe what the returned coordination frame looks like, but the output schema covers that.

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 dense sentences with the privacy/read-only constraint front-loaded, followed by the transformation and the safety guarantees. Every clause carries meaning, though the run-on list of negatives is slightly packed.

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 3-param intake tool with an output schema, the description supplies the framing, privacy constraint, escalation rules, and scope limits an agent needs. The main omission is explicit routing to sibling tools (e.g. prepare_visit, track_followup) for the next step.

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% and both enum-bearing params carry their own descriptions, including the caution against inferring stronger signals. The description echoes the emergency/withdrawal/safeguarding vocabulary but adds no new syntax, defaults, or usage nuance for the undocumented category param, so 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?

Names a specific transformation ('converts the person's own description into a nonclinical coordination frame') and its scope, so the agent knows this is an intake/framing step rather than a lookup. It stands apart from the crypto/work siblings by domain, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closer neighbors like start_here or capacity_checkin.

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 framing ('coordination' for a 'health or care problem') implies the entry-point context, and the safety-routing clause hints at when signals should be escalated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many siblings.

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