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

While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true), the description provides critical behavioral constraints on the data itself. It informs the agent that the results are public information and that sandbox results are merely samples, which manages the agent's expectations regarding real-world accuracy versus simulated output.

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 definition is highly economical. Both sentences are focused, with the primary constraints and behavioral protocols strategically placed to guide the AI agent immediately after defining the tool's basic purpose.

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 high complexity of domain-specific, filtered search tools, the definition is extremely complete. It handles the core function, potential input deficiencies, output limitations (public/sandbox), and data classification constraints all within its text.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides significant semantic value by defining the domain boundaries (VA facilities vs. county offices) and explaining the filters. It clarifies that city and facility-type are 'optional filters,' guiding correct parameter construction, though it doesn't elaborate on specific parameter meanings.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('official VA facilities'), and clearly defines the scope by listing optional filters (state, city, facility-type). It provides a strong operational definition of the tool's function.

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?

It provides explicit instructions on when to act and when to wait: 'If location is missing, ask the returned question.' Furthermore, it sets boundaries on usage by forbidding speculative behavior ('Do not guess a state') or misclassification ('present a VA facility as a county tax office or accredited VSO').

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