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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description usefully adds that excerpts are verified against the current website and fail closed on change—a meaningful operational trait (freshness/verification) that annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense, with the verification detail tacked on at the end, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the nature of the content returned (sourced boundaries and emergency guidance) and its reliability behavior. For a single-enum-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, with the only gap being the un-described parameter.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single 'service' parameter. The enum values are self-explanatory service names, so an agent can still pick correctly, but the description contributes no added semantics beyond the schema—baseline 3.

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 ('Read') and resource ('sourced general boundaries and emergency guidance for a service'), and explicitly delimits scope by saying it does not do symptom questions, personal screening, or eligibility determination. This distinguishes it from screening-oriented siblings, though the phrasing is abstract enough that an agent must infer exactly what 'boundaries' contains.

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 title ('Read when online care is not appropriate') supplies a usage cue, and the description says what the tool does not do. However, no alternative sibling (e.g. get_service_details, list_care_options, get_next_step) is named, so the agent gets negative scope but no explicit routing guidance.

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