crisis_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the response is fixed and pre-authored, and the agent must reply with it verbatim with 'no analytics' — an important constraint on how the result is handled.

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 short sentences, urgency front-loaded in the first clause, with each sentence carrying distinct information: when to call, what comes back, and how to handle it. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully characterizes the return value, and it covers the trigger and the required handling behavior. The only real gap is the unexplained 'message' input, which is a minor omission for an optional parameter.

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 0% and the single optional 'message' parameter has no title-level explanation. The description never mentions the parameter or what the agent should pass in it (e.g., the user's triggering message), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 exactly what the tool produces — a fixed response containing hotlines and the user's trusted contact — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling health-data tool. An agent can tell at a glance that this is not a data-retrieval or analytics tool.

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?

It gives an explicit, unmissable trigger: 'Call IMMEDIATELY on any sign of crisis, suicidal thoughts or self-harm.' The when-not condition is only implied (i.e., do not call otherwise), and no alternative tool is named — though none exists among the siblings — so this falls just short of the full 5.

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