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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds useful context by specifying the entity index scope and supported languages. No contradictions with annotations. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but those are not necessary given the annotations and 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 tight sentences that front-load the action and include only essential information: entity types, search fields, languages, and the id-to-fetch linkage. No filler.

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 an output schema exists and annotations handle safety, the description fully covers the search scope, language support, and follow-up workflow. No major gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it mentions the search scope and languages but no extra syntax, defaults, or examples beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it searches the clinic, doctor, treatment, service, and policy entity index by name, alias, or summary text. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_clinic_profile and get_prices by being the search entry point.

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?

Explicitly explains that results carry an id that can be passed to the fetch tool, implying a search-then-fetch workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus get_* tools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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