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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 25-result cap, distance sorting, returned fields (name, address, phone, hours, verification status), the geographic footprint (50 states + DC + PR + territories), and an important caveat that delivery coverage, enrollment, cost and current access must be confirmed with the provider. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the essential behavioral profile is present.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then caveats, then return shape and coverage. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the long resource-type list slightly overlaps the enum.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain both behavior and return values — and it does, specifying result count, sort order, returned fields, coverage area, and a verification caveat. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the enum and defaults. The description's enumeration of resource types largely duplicates the enum rather than adding syntax or semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Feed America's database of food resources) and enumerates the covered resource types, which cleanly separates it from siblings like feedam_get_resource_details (detail lookup) and feedam_get_state_snap_portal (state-level portal). An agent can identify this as the discovery/search entry point without opening the 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?

The description implies usage via 'near a location' and the required location parameter, but never explicitly says when to use this tool versus feedam_get_resource_details or feedam_get_state_snap_portal, nor does it state exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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