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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those: results are 'evidence-backed public profiles,' each row reports which published fact matched and when it was read, and no login is required. This gives the agent useful expectations about result provenance and access without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences carry all essential information: the search scope and filters, the output row behavior, and the authentication requirement. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with 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 nine optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers search inputs, access requirements, and result-row behavior without needing to restate the output schema. It leaves minor ambiguity about how filters combine and whether at least one search criterion is expected, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 44%, and the description compensates by mapping 'by name or place' to query/locality/province/postal_code and 'service, language, published weekend or evening hours, booking route' to the filter parameters. It adds semantic meaning to enum values, such as published hours and a route usable now, though it does not detail every parameter like limit.

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 ('Search') and names the exact resource: evidence-backed public profiles in the Canadian dental directory. It enumerates the search axes (name/place, service, language, published hours, booking route) and thus distinguishes this discovery tool from sibling retrieval or booking tools like get_canadian_dental_practice and list_public_booking_slots.

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 clearly implies a search/discovery context: it explains what can be searched and notes that 'No login or clinic membership is required,' which is useful usage framing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for finding dentists.

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