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

Annotations already establish read-only behavior, and the description adds context about the data source (loaded caches) and output behavior (up to 100 records, source_file and snapshot_digest may be null). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds output details and usage guidance. Every clause is informative, with no redundancy or waste.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level return summary (dated source context, up to 100 records) and notes nullability of specific fields. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only search tool, though it does not enumerate all result fields or error conditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter-related statements ('by vertical and state', 'optional county') largely mirror the schema and add no new meaning beyond emphasizing the primary filtering dimensions.

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 searches US healthcare providers in loaded CMS NPPES specialty caches by vertical and state, with optional county. This specifies the action (search), resource (providers), and scope, and is distinct from sibling tools like lookup_npi or search_sanctions.

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 explicitly says 'Use for provider discovery by specialty and geography,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies reliance on loaded caches, which is a contextual prerequisite.

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