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

Given that there is no output schema, the description is highly valuable for behavioral transparency. It explicitly lists the data returned (address, phone, website, source, environment) and clearly defines functional exclusions, providing context far beyond the generic 'Read' verb.

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 efficient. The first sentence defines the core action and input, and the second sentence handles output and scoping. Both sentences are focused and contribute maximum value.

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?

The description is remarkably complete considering the lack of an output schema. It covers the input mechanism, specific return data fields, and ethical/functional limitations. Only the absence of an output schema prevents a perfect score here.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full semantic burden. However, since the description merely states the tool is used 'using its returned id,' it doesn't add any unique functional meaning or data type nuance beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 purpose: reading one official VA facility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_va_facilities' by specifying that it uses a returned ID for a singular record lookup.

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?

While it does not explicitly reference sibling tools as alternatives, it provides critical usage boundaries by stating what it *does not* do, specifically that it 'Does not return private veteran records or decide eligibility.' This strongly guides the agent on when this tool is inappropriate.

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