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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait—results are sorted by distance—but offers nothing on pagination, result cardinality, or coverage gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the core scope (what, where) is front-loaded ahead of the filter-syntax note. Slightly redundant in re-listing enum values already present in the schema.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource domain, location input, and result ordering, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing pagination/limit behavior is a minor gap.

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 80% and the two enums (type, specialty) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the specialty categories and resource types but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource ('find veteran resources') with the locating input ('near a US ZIP code') and enumerates the covered categories. The ZIP-based scoping implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_city and search_veteran_resources_by_text, but it never names them 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?

Usage is implied by the description (locate nearby veteran services by ZIP), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance—even though close siblings such as search_by_city, search_veteran_resources_by_text, and get_zip_overview make the choice non-obvious.

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