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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses what the caller gets back (specific hotline, dialing instructions, text/chat channels, nearby centers), which matters because there is no output schema and the agent may relay the number verbatim.

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. The resource scope is front-loaded, with the trigger condition second, so an agent can classify the tool from the first clause alone.

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-optional-param, annotation-rich, output-schema-less tool, the description supplies what is returned and when to invoke it, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the unaddressed relationship to the get_crisis_lines sibling.

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% — the single optional zip is fully documented as 'Optional ZIP to find nearest Vet Center crisis resources'. The description adds nothing about the parameter and does not need to; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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: immediate crisis support for a veteran in distress, and enumerates the concrete payload (Veterans Crisis Line 988 press 1, text/chat options, nearby crisis centers). It is clear and actionable, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_crisis_lines, which an agent must disambiguate before choosing.

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 an explicit triggering condition — 'Use when a veteran mentions self-harm, suicide, hopelessness or crisis' — which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It offers no when-not guidance and does not name get_crisis_lines as the alternative for general (non-veteran) crisis lines.

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