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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are ranked and include distance and freshness information ('when each was last checked'), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 simple search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the search scope, ranking, distance, and freshness. The main remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter, but the schema constrains it numerically.

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 75%, with query, near, and radius documented but limit left undocumented. The description reinforces the need/place concepts but adds no detail about limit behavior, pagination, or default result size beyond what the schema partially provides.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (find/search) and the resource scope: community groups, charities, and support services, filtered by need and place. It is clearer than a generic search tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_service, which likely retrieves a single service.

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?

The phrase 'by need and place' implies the search criteria and gives some context for when to use the tool. However, it does not state when to choose it over siblings such as get_service or list_categories, nor does it include exclusions or prerequisites.

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