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.