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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds what is returned (eligibility, how-to-apply, current intake status) and a critical state caveat that emergency-aid applications are currently paused - dynamic information an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, the enumerated program list is dense but informative, and every sentence (use case, return contents, paused status) earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the needed context: what it returns and the current intake state. Nothing an agent requires 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 0%, so the description must carry the load, but the sole 'program' enum is only loosely mapped: the five named programs roughly correspond to the enum values (emergency, hrt, care_packages, housing, partnerships) yet the 'all' default and the filtering behavior are never explained. It adds marginal meaning over a self-evident enum.

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 (Describe) and resource (the five direct-aid programs Wounded Warriors itself operates), then enumerates them explicitly so the agent knows exactly what content to expect. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling resource directory, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it - 'when a veteran asks what Wounded Warriors actually provides' - and contrasts it with the resource directory alternative. The contrast is by category rather than naming the specific sibling tool (e.g. search_veteran_resources), so the routing hint is clear but not fully pinned to a tool name.

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