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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: dataset breadth (26 platforms), sourcing ('each fact with the platform's own source page'), and the fact that a single platform yields its 'full record'. It says nothing about how the two filters interact or what a record contains.

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?

It leads with the audience and purpose, then enumerates the covered fields, then states the two call modes — a sensible front-loaded order. The inline platform-name list (Headway, Alma, Rula, Grow Therapy, SonderMind, BetterHelp, Talkspace) is slightly padded but does convey dataset scope efficiently.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers dataset scope, field coverage, provenance and the two invocation modes. The remaining gap is minor: it does not say whether the two filters can be combined or what the single-platform record structure looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the license enum and the platform example values. The description only restates the filtering intent ('Filter by license or name one platform') and adds the hint that naming a platform returns its full record, which is already conveyed by the schema description.

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 resource (a 26-platform dataset covering contractor/employee status, fees, published pay, credentialing and accepted licenses) with named examples, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling online_therapy_prices_overview or search_online_therapy_services, leaving overlap to be inferred from the title's 'pay and charge therapists' framing.

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 audience framing 'For licensed clinicians choosing where to work' and the closing 'Filter by license or name one platform' imply the two usage modes (browse by license vs. fetch one platform). However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so routing against the four siblings remains implicit.

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