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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains conditional fields ('cuando la oficina lo confirmó') and the meaning of nivel_verificacion with its three possible values. This lets the agent correctly interpret data trustworthiness and know what the result contains.

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 efficiently structured: action and scope first, then return fields and verification semantics, then concrete use cases. It is longer than a minimal description but every sentence earns its place with relevant detail.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns, including specialty, town, phone, NPI, permanent link, acceptance status, accepted plans, and verifier. The use-case examples and schema coverage together provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with types and examples, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. The examples in the description reinforce especialidad, municipio, and plan-related usage, but do not go beyond the schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Busca' and names the exact resource: health providers across Puerto Rico in registromedicopr.com. It clearly identifies the domain and data source, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate them.

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 'Úsalo para' section gives three concrete example queries that clarify when to invoke this tool, such as finding a cardiologist accepting a specific plan or checking if a professional is still practicing. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly point to alternatives, but the use cases are sufficiently clear.

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