cancer-support-hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and states what is returned, but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no fluff.

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 the simple 2-parameter tool and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the return content. It does not describe error handling or output structure, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id and language with enum and default). The description reinforces the id usage with 'by ID' but adds no additional semantic information beyond 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?

Clearly states it retrieves full details for a single resource by ID, listing locations, hours, and match criteria. The verb 'Get' and resource scope distinguish it from siblings like search_resources.

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?

Description implies the tool is for fetching a specific resource when the ID is known. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_resources for finding resources.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact count ('all 11'), the content (names, descriptions, resource counts), and its listing nature, making the tool's behavior predictable without stating an explicit read-only hint.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and result, and includes a purposeful usage note. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or verbosity.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it lists, the fixed set size, and when to use it. The sibling tool names reinforce its role without requiring additional detail.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'language' parameter with an enum and default value, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all 11 support categories with names, descriptions, and resource counts,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_counties and search_resources by focusing on categories.

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 advises 'Use this to understand what types of resources are available before searching,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It implies a precursor step to searching but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It adds the fact that there are exactly 39 counties and that the purpose is to find names for filtering, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any edge cases. Given the simplicity, the information is adequate but not extensive.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the core capability ('List all 39 Washington State counties'), and the second sentence adds useful context. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 trivial parameterless list tool, the description covers the core purpose and the primary use case. It doesn't specify the exact response format, but given the simplicity and the sibling search_resources tool, the intent is clear. A score of 4 reflects it's complete for its 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No irrelevant parameter information is included.

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 explicitly states 'List all 39 Washington State counties' with a specific verb and resource, and the count adds specificity. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on enumeration of counties rather than getting or searching resources.

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 second sentence 'Use this to find the correct county name for filtering search results' provides a clear use case and implies when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of the highest standard.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by listing the return fields (name, description, phone, URL, eligibility, cost) and confirms a search (read) operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, pagination behavior, default limits, or authorization requirements. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 compact at two sentences and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The category list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but is useful for quick comprehension. It does not waste words on obvious details, making it concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, filter options, and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on how filters combine, default limits, language behavior, or relationships with sibling tools. The description is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves room for ambiguity in more complex use cases.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds marginal value by listing categories and mentioning free-text query, but these largely duplicate the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search cancer support resources in Washington State.' The verb 'search' combined with the resource type and geographic scope gives a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resource, which presumably fetches a single resource, and list_categories/list_counties, which are lookup tools.

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 implies usage for finding resources via filters (category, county, tier, free-text query) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_resource. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools for single-resource retrieval, so usage guidance is only implied.

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