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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavior the annotations do not: ambiguous city names are resolved by population, and abbreviations like Ft Worth, St Louis, NYC are normalized. It does not discuss result ordering or paging, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose first and the behavioral detail (disambiguation/abbreviation handling) second. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 read-only search with no output schema and mostly covered parameters, the description supplies the distinctive routing rule and name-resolution quirks an agent needs. It could say a little more about what comes back (e.g., whether results are distance-sorted or radius-bounded), but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is already 80%, so radius limits and the type enum are documented structurally. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the resolution rules for the 'city' parameter (population-based disambiguation, abbreviation expansion), which the schema's terse 'City name (e.g., Houston, San Diego)' does not convey.

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 ('Find veteran resources') plus the scoping input ('near a US city name'). The line 'Use when the user provides a city instead of ZIP code' implicitly separates it from the ZIP-oriented siblings (get_zip_overview, search_veteran_resources), so an agent can route 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition: the user supplies a city rather than a ZIP. It stops short of naming the exact alternative tool to call in the ZIP case, so the agent must infer which sibling to route to, but the selection context is unambiguous.

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