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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-state those. The description adds that it returns clinic name, address, contact info, Helfo status, and profile URL, which is helpful behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences packed with all key information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives an illustrative example. No redundant words.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters and the output fields. It does not mention pagination or result format, but the 'limit' parameter and the listed fields provide sufficient guidance. A slightly more complete description might note that results are returned as a list of clinics.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description summarizes the filter capabilities and provides an example query, which adds practical context beyond the schema. The example helps the agent understand how to combine parameters effectively.

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 specifies the exact resource (Norwegian dental clinics from finn-tannlege.com) and the action (search). It also lists supported filters, which helps the agent understand its capabilities. The sibling tools (e.g., tannlege_akutt, tannlege_info) have different purposes, so this description effectively distinguishes the search function.

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 clearly states what filters are available and gives an example query, providing good context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead for different scenarios (e.g., getting details of a single clinic or finding emergency clinics).

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