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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that name lookup reports unresolved ambiguity, that records carry sources and dates, that missing fields stay unavailable, that prices are observations rather than quotes, that coverage records do not determine individual benefits, and that results carry a request-information link. These are data-semantics caveats annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read-only scope, and most sentences carry real caveats (prices vs. quotes, coverage vs. benefits) that an agent needs. The single dense block is longer than necessary and the closing link sentence adds little, but nothing is redundant with the annotations.

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 auth, data provenance, and semantic caveats well. The one gap is that it never states the name-or-publicId requirement implied by the all-optional parameter set.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by mapping the content categories (prices, reviews, amenities, services, coverage, inspections) to the include enum and clarifying which summaries are always returned. It does not state that at least one of name/publicId is needed, leaving the zero-required-parameter case to 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 ('details for a named senior living facility or its stable publicId') and enumerates exactly what content is covered (care types, prices, floor plans, reviews, coverage, licensing, inspections). The distinction from the sibling search_facilities is only implied by 'named facility' vs. a listing/search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Public, read-only ... without a CareOpenly account' plus 'Relevant to questions about a specific community's care types, published starting and care-specific prices...' gives clear conditions for use. It never names search_facilities as the alternative for discovery or states exclusions, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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