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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behaviour, and the description adds real context beyond them: what a result contains (contacts, category IDs, locations, timestamps, citation URL), that missing data reads as unknown, and that registration status is not a live official verification. Slightly vague on what 'unknown' means in practice, and error behaviour for a bad slug is unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key, then returns, then caveats. Dense with no filler, though the two disclaimer sentences could be tightened into one.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, sequencing, return shape summary and interpretation caveats. The remaining gap is not-found/error handling and any staleness expectations, which an agent would want before calling.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the slug pattern example and 'Never supply a URL'. The description's 'using its returned slug ID' merely restates that, adding no format or edge-case detail. 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 resource ('read a public provider profile') and pins the lookup key ('its returned slug ID'), which makes the search-then-read relationship clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other sibling, list_ndis_services, leaving one boundary to inference.

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?

'Use this to read a public provider profile after search' gives a clear usage context and sequence, and 'Cannot book or contact providers' sets a firm out-of-scope boundary. No sibling is named as an explicit alternative, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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