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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool searches a large dataset, returns identifiers, and includes capability flags. It also lists the entity types. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for a search tool's core behavior.

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 that front-load the primary function and data scope, with zero filler. Every clause adds information.

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 tool is a simple search with no output schema; the description adequately conveys what it returns (ids and capability flags) and its role relative to sibling tools. No critical 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 covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., query is case-insensitive substring, limit has min/max). The description adds a high-level summary ('by name and/or city, optionally filtered by state and type') but no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search', names the resource 'facilities', and scopes the dataset ('41K+ US facilities' with types). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools, which retrieve specific facility data.

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?

It states the tool is for searching by name/city with optional filters, and notes that it 'Returns ids usable with the other tools', implying the appropriate workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative search tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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