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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a hard cap of 20 results, best-first relevance ordering, and that each match carries a page url. It does not state matching semantics (exact vs prefix vs fuzzy), whether unauthenticated, or what happens when more than 20 candidates exist, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by result behavior and the next-step pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers return shape (up to 20, ranked, each with url) and the handoff to lookup_provider. For a simple three-parameter search tool this is everything an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (query and state documented, limit not). The description adds meaning the schema lacks: query accepts person or organization names, state scopes the search, and 'up to 20 matches' implicitly explains the limit ceiling of 20 declared in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find individual providers or organizations by name'), adds the optional state scope, and implicitly distinguishes itself from lookup_provider by describing itself as a name-based finder. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling lookup tool without opening either 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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when the question names a person or practice but no NPI.' It also names the follow-up alternative ('Use lookup_provider on a result for the full record'), giving both the entry condition and the escalation path.

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