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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful clarification that the tool only lists providers and does not assess eligibility, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary. It does not disclose details like whether results are paginated or how ratings are computed, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose and key data fields. The second sentence adds an important scope clarification without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to search, and what it does not do. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the sort and limit parameters, but those are already described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning search by name, city, or postcode, which maps to the query parameter, and it clarifies that postcode is matched as text, not by distance. However, it does not add much beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 finds UK medical cannabis clinics and lists the key data fields (location, consultation fees, rating). It also distinguishes itself from eligibility assessment, which helps an agent understand its scope. The verb 'find' plus the resource 'clinics' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and explicitly clarifies that it does not determine patient eligibility, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_pharmacies or find_products, so an agent might need to infer when to choose this over those. The search-by-name/city/postcode hint gives some context for when to use it.

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