get_facility_profileStructured summary for any facility; for hospitals the full profile markdown (quality measures, ratings context) is returned AS THE TEXT CONTENT BLOCK, with metadata (truncation flag, full URL) in structuredContent. max_chars bounds the markdown body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | Markdown budget (default 15000). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses that the full profile markdown is returned as the text content block and that metadata (truncation flag, full URL) appears in structuredContent. It also notes that max_chars bounds the markdown body, revealing truncation behavior; however, it does not address error responses or other operational details.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose, with no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail about return format and truncation control.
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 get-profile tool without an output schema, the description covers the return structure (text block vs structuredContent), truncation flag, full URL, and max_chars. It lacks explicit error-handling behavior and doesn't fully specify non-hospital outputs, but it is largely complete for typical usage.
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?
The schema only describes max_chars; the description adds that max_chars bounds the markdown body, enhancing its meaning. However, it does not explain id or type beyond the schema's enum, and with 33% coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 states the tool returns a structured summary for any facility, with the full profile markdown for hospitals including quality measures and ratings context. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_facility or get_hospital_prices by specifying the complete profile content.
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 implies use for retrieving full facility profile content but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, and sibling differentiation is left to context rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: search discovers facilities, get_facility provides metadata and tool compatibility, get_facility_profile returns detailed profiles, and the two hospital-specific tools cover clinicians and pricing. There is no meaningful overlap between these five operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_facility, get_facility_profile, get_hospital_clinicians, get_hospital_prices, and search_facilities. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With five tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of facility lookup and hospital-specific data retrieval. Each tool covers a distinct aspect without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers search, lookup, profiles, and specialized hospital data (clinicians and prices), providing a complete workflow for hospital facilities. Minor gaps exist for non-hospital facility types, which only have profile access and no specialized data tools, but this appears driven by data availability rather than an oversight.