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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the records come from state and Medicare public licensing data, result ordering mirrors the kovante.com search, and each result carries a link to the full record. It stops short of disclosure about the hard result cap or pagination 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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The closing sentence about linking to Kovante records is slightly promotional but does convey a usable follow-up affordance, so it 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the data-source and ordering notes add real value. Still, for a 5-parameter search with only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves the budget filter, radius behavior and the 10-result cap unexplained, and never addresses what happens when a place cannot be resolved.

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 only 40%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it covers only the place input (town/county/ZIP) and partially the care types — omitting 'hospice', which is a valid enum value in the schema. The limit, radius_miles and max_monthly_budget parameters receive no explanation at all, and the 'modeled estimate' comparison for budget is left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find licensed nursing homes, assisted living and memory care'), scopes it geographically (US town, county or ZIP) and names the data provenance (state and Medicare public records). Combined with the title and sibling set, an agent can distinguish this directory search from get_facility (single record) and compare without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'near a US town, county or ZIP' and by the note that every home links to its full record, which hints at a follow-up get_facility call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the compare or questions_to_ask siblings, so routing still requires inference.

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