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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world search, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing result provenance and freshness: costs and insurance answers are reported 'as its own pages state them', plus the date checked and a source page. It does not describe pagination or behavior when no results match, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the filter surface, the second describes the return payload and its sourcing caveat. The search capability is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title. The density is appropriate for a seven-parameter search tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what each result carries: cost, insurance answer, date checked, and the source page. For a seven-parameter but all-optional, read-only search this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is routing context relative to its four siblings and what happens on an empty match set.

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 every one of the seven parameters is already documented in the schema, including enum values for age_group and insurance_plan. The description echoes the same filter axes (insurance, price, medication, age, keyword) without adding format, precedence, or interaction semantics such as how query behaves alongside the boolean filters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find US online therapy and psychiatry services') and enumerates the filterable dimensions: insurance plan, self-pay price, medication prescribing, age group, keyword. It is unambiguous as to what the tool returns. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as compare_online_therapy_services or get_online_therapy_service, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied by the filter list: it is clear you use this to narrow a list of services by criteria, but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. compare_online_therapy_services' or 'use get_online_therapy_service for a single service's detail'. No exclusions or prerequisite guidance are given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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