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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the ~30 intent rules, the domain coverage (donors, veterans, families/survivors, press/policy), and the crisis-always-wins ranking rule. It does not state behavior on low/no match, but the routing policy is meaningfully disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value and the routing contract, followed by coverage scope. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (endpoint + rationale + score) and the crisis precedence rule, which is the critical safety behavior. Minor gap: no guidance on fallback when no rule matches, and no hint of the endpoint naming used in the response.

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?

There is a single 'query' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only implies free-text input, adding nothing beyond what the schema documents. 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 output: takes any free-text question and returns the best-matching Wounded Warriors endpoint with a rationale and score. That distinguishes it from the ~40 concrete lookup/retrieval siblings, which it sits above as a router, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

'Given any free-text question' implies this is the entry point when the caller doesn't know which tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of the alternative (calling a specific tool directly). Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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