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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (returns data without modification), mentions pricing per row, and specifies conditions for enriched data (API key configuration). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but is otherwise transparent.

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 somewhat verbose with extraneous phrases like 'A territory map for medical-device, imaging, staffing, and construction sellers into the VA' and 'Public VA/HRSA records.' It front-loads with a question, which is engaging but not optimally concise for an agent.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality, return values (location, address, coordinates, and optional enriched data), and pricing. It does not detail pagination or default behavior but is sufficient for a search tool.

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 lists criteria (state, city, name, facility type) that overlap with parameter descriptions in the schema, adding only a mention of additional use cases (e.g., 'territory map for sellers') but no new parameter semantics or syntax guidance.

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 starts with a clear question ('Where are the VA's facilities, and of what type?') and immediately specifies it searches Veterans Health Administration sites by state, city, name, or facility type. It lists return fields (location, address, coordinates, etc.) and mentions optional enriched data, making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on opportunities or vendors.

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 states the tool can be used by state, city, name, or facility type, and notes when additional data is returned (with API key). It provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or contrast with alternatives among siblings.

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