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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: results are limited to verified partners, locations are approximate and never home addresses, and remote/fundable needs are surfaced when no local need exists.

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 first sentence front-loads the complete scope and privacy constraint in one dense clause, followed by usage examples and the empty-result behavior. The closing Proverbs quotation is decorative but brief and consistent with the product voice.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining agent-facing gaps: verification status of posters, location privacy, geographic matching inputs, and honest empty-state behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 80%, so lat/lng/city/country/limit are largely documented in the schema itself. The description implies place-based lookup but adds no syntax, pairing rules, or precedence guidance (e.g., lat/lng vs city vs country) beyond what the schema already says, so the 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 and resource ('open, verified needs on The Living Bread Serve network that the app shows publicly') and enumerates the returned fields (what is needed, local/remote/funding, the partner). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like where_can_i_serve_publicly or find_churches_near 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 quoted user questions ('how can I help in my city', 'who needs groceries near Kigali', 'something I can fund') give concrete when-to-use contexts, and it explicitly states the fallback when nothing is near. It never names an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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