compare_therapists

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure not in the annotations: no medical suitability or quality ranking is inferred, and unknown/not_listed values require direct confirmation. That tells the agent what the tool will and won't conclude.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and very compact. The telegraphic phrasing ('Unknown/not_listed needs direct confirmation') is slightly cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.

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, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the two semantics the schema cannot convey: how requirements combine and the non-inference disclaimer. The only real omission is require_approbation, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 67%, so baseline expectations are moderate. The description adds the combination logic (OR within a field, AND across fields) that the schema does not express, but require_approbation is undocumented in both the schema and the description, 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+resource combination ('Compare profiles against explicit directory facts'), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_therapists or get_therapist. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 OR-within-field / AND-across-fields rule effectively tells the agent how to construct a comparison, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. get_therapist/search_therapists statement and no stated prerequisites for the profiles input.

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