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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: daily allocation limit, worst-first ordering, exclusive 30-day reservation, skipped shared platforms, report_link/channel details, and outreach rules. It also aligns with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 dense but front-loads the allocation limit and core outcome, then adds reservation, filtering, region format, and rules. Some region-format wording duplicates the schema, but overall the structure is purposeful and not padded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, region input, daily cap, ordering, reservation exclusivity, filtering, report_link presence, and outreach constraints. Return format is only partially described through the report_link mention, which keeps it short of perfect completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the region format. The description repeats the US-state and country-code examples without adding new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific outcome: it returns up to 20 new client sites per day in a region where research found accessibility barriers, ordered worst-first, each with a report_link. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as client_link or client_report.

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 description gives clear usage context: one call per region, a daily cap of 20 new sites, a 30-day reservation, and filtering of shared platforms. It does not name alternatives or explain when not to use the tool, but the intended scenario and constraints are explicit.

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