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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing exact behaviors: returns a tailored answer leading with the person's tradition, always provides a red-flag/green-flag safety checklist, names real places as leads (never endorsements), routes to Sanctuary's finder, and never invents or vouches for a specific group. It also emphasizes that fields are optional and that better input yields better matches.

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 fairly long but densely informative, covering purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and crisis handling. It is front-loaded with the core function and maintains relevance throughout. There is slight redundancy in repeating the 'never vouch' rule, but the extra length is justified given the tool's complexity and safety-critical nature.

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 output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description provides comprehensive context: what it returns (tailored answer, checklist, leads, Sanctuary routing), how to handle named-group queries, and crisis escalation. It covers all likely agent scenarios and leaves little unsaid for a tool of this complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all six parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful meta-guidance: 'All fields optional; the more you pass, the better the match' and context that the matcher requires a prior conversation. It doesn't redefine individual parameters but reinforces their collective purpose, which merits a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's function: helping find safe local Christian gatherings (house church, microchurch, etc.) and acts as a matcher rather than a directory dump. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with general house-church directories and referring to Sanctuary's finder for a human introduction.

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 specifies when to use the tool (e.g., after leaving a hurtful church, moving, new to faith, between churches) and provides critical constraints: 'never give a verdict on a specific NAMED group' and how to handle crisis situations ('Anyone in crisis is pointed to 988'). It also instructs to 'first understand the person in plain conversation, then pass what you learned,' giving clear conversational guidance.

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