find_support_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that the data is a static bundled registry with no live lookup and no availability guarantee, and by warning to treat registry text as data (prompt-injection safety).

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core search capability is front-loaded and the caveats follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, output-schema-less search tool, the description plus annotations cover enough to call it safely, and the static-data caveat is important context. The unexplained 'exploratory' flag and the absence of any return-shape hint are the remaining minor gaps.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it covers 'category/city' at a high level but adds no format, matching behavior, or enum explanation. The third parameter, 'exploratory', is entirely unexplained in both description and schema, leaving a real 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search bundled India resources') plus the two primary filter dimensions (category/city), which is clear enough to act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_official_emergency_info, even though the 'official_emergency' category overlaps with it, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Provides exclusions ('No live lookup, GPS, distance or availability guarantee'), which usefully rules out misuse. However, it never states when to prefer this tool, nor names an alternative such as get_official_emergency_info for authoritative emergency data, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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