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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that the tool searches a public directory, which is consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., no mention of rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements).

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph with three sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what it returns, and a workflow hint. No wasted words.

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?

The description mentions the output format ('FHIR Organization resources'), but without an output schema, this is vague. It does not describe pagination, result limits, or how to interpret the results. The suggestion to use list_clinic_services next partly compensates, but the return structure remains under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It repeats the concept of 'clinic-name' but does not clarify constraints like the enumeration for modality or the meaning of friskvard.

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 specifies the action (Search), the resource (public directory of Swedish MSK clinics on fysio.care), and the output format (FHIR Organization resources). It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling list_clinic_services by suggesting it as a next step.

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 provides a clear follow-up action ('Use list_clinic_services next to see what a clinic offers'), indicating a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like get_available_slots or get_next_available_date, leaving the comparison implicit.

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