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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so only additions count. The description adds real value with two facts not in the structured data: only *published* clinics are returned, and results are FHIR Organization resources — important since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, no filler; the identity/scope comes first and the sibling pointer last. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 five-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (published clinics as FHIR Organization) and where to go next. Only the filter-combination behavior and result ordering/pagination remain unstated, which is minor here.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical modality list loosely maps to the enum values, but the description adds no semantics for city matching (exact), query (case-insensitive substring), limit, or friskvård beyond what the schema already states.

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 the public directory of Swedish MSK clinics") with geographic and domain scope (fysio.care, fysioterapi/naprapati/kiropraktik). It also names the sibling list_clinic_services and what it covers, so an agent can separate discovery from service lookup without opening schemas.

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?

"Use list_clinic_services next to see what a clinic offers" gives an explicit follow-up route and the condition that selects it. However, it gives no guidance on how to combine the filtering parameters (city vs. query vs. modality) or when this tool is the wrong choice for a lookup.

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