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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavior: only published items are searched, results are ordered by next date, pagination uses a cursor, and the date range is interpreted as [from, to). It does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or response shape.

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 description is front-loaded with the search scope and then enumerates filters and ordering/pagination behavior. It is dense but efficient, though the long middle sentence packs many parameters together.

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 20-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a strong overview of searchable content, filters, ordering, and pagination. It still leaves some gaps around returned fields, authorization, and how detail siblings should be used.

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 description groups and names most filter dimensions: text, organizer entity, saved map, area, kind, categories, audiences, access/cost models, frequency, and date range. It adds semantic detail like area modes and the date interval boundary, which goes beyond the 75%-covered schema.

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 set: search published community food programs, events, volunteer roles and jobs. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_program or list_program_occurrences.

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 implied for filtered discovery, and it notes the same filters as GET /v1/programs. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_program, list_program_occurrences, or search_entities.

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