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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the schema or annotations: results are ordered with the most-litigated providers first, which affects how an agent should interpret the top of the list. It says nothing about pagination mechanics or result shape, leaving the remaining burden to the schema and 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 waste, with the capability and the sibling routing front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers the essentials: scope, filters, ordering, and the alternative tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether filters are conjunctive and how paging interacts with the ordering, but these are small against the structured coverage.

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 100% and every parameter, including the side enum values and the purpose/cursor semantics, is documented inline. The description only echoes the filter names ('type, specialty, side, town and size') without adding syntax, matching rules, or defaults, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List medical providers named in expert disclosures'), names the filter dimensions, the ordering ('most cases first'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_provider, which returns a single provider in full. An agent can tell exactly which of the two tools to reach for.

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 closing sentence routes the agent to get_provider for a single full record, giving clear context for when this search tool is the wrong choice. It does not spell out how filters combine or what happens when no filters are supplied, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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