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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the tool shows no prices, books nothing and changes nothing, and that coaching is training not medical care. It stops short of describing limits like result caps or ranking, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 is one long run-on sentence, but it is front-loaded with the trigger and every clause (what it returns, what it does not do, scope disclaimer) carries information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, yet the description supplies the non-obvious domain boundaries (no prices, no booking, not medical care) that structured fields cannot express. Sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with only two optional params, so the schema already carries the semantics; the description only indirectly illustrates them via the example utterances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional syntax or format detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find' + 'personal/human coach') and immediately scopes it as 1:1, program-writing, weekly-check-in coaching, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_coaching_brain or find_clinic without opening either schema.

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?

Trigger conditions are explicit and illustrated with realistic user phrasings ('I want a real coach for basketball', 'can someone coach me one on one?'). It gives no negative guidance naming an alternative tool (e.g. when to use find_coaching_brain instead), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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