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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: strict public-only output ('never coordinates, never a contact') and the promise of an honest empty result ('Honest when nothing is listed'), which preempts fabrication.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is a single long run-on sentence chained with colons and em-dashes. It conveys the right content but is dense enough that an agent must parse several clauses to extract the triggers and the privacy guarantee.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers privacy boundaries, trigger intents, and empty-result behavior. It leaves only minor gaps such as how the filters combine and how large result sets are returned.

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 three filters are already self-documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description mentions city, country and in-person/remote as returned attributes rather than as filter syntax, so it adds little semantic meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific resource (verified, publicly listed needs asking for people) and the fields returned (what, city, country, in-person/remote, ministry). It distinguishes itself from general church/gathering tools via the 'serve' framing, but never names the closest sibling (needs_near) to disambiguate.

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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers ('where can I volunteer', 'where can I serve this Saturday', 'something I can help with remotely'), which clearly tells the agent when to select this tool. However it offers no when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives such as needs_near.

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