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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds return-shape context (full listings with address, phone, doctor, plus total match count for paging), which goes beyond annotations but partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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, front-loaded with the search scope before the return details, with no filler. The second sentence is a dense run-on combining return fields and paging count, which slightly blurs the structure but wastes little.

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?

For a six-parameter, fully optional search tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, facets and result content adequately. Remaining gaps, such as default page size of 25, the 100 cap, and whether query combines with structured filters via AND, are modest but real.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description carries weight: it defines what the free-text query matches (name, city, doctor, specialty) and that filters exist for state, city and practice model. Limit and offset are only hinted at via 'for paging', so the maximum page size and the offset semantics are still left 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Tabflows' DPC Finder directory of direct primary care practices in the US) plus the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, get_dpc_practice, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is implicit enough to avoid confusion.

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 implies usage by listing the searchable facets (free text, state, city, practice model), which tells an agent when this tool fits. It never states when it should not be used, nor routes to get_dpc_practice for a single known practice, and gives no guidance on combining query with structured filters.

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