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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: source provenance, coverage scale (250+ places), that doctor licences are team-verified, what the results contain, and a safety disclaimer with an emergency number. It stops short of pagination/limit behavior or data freshness details.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, return contents, and disclaimer in a logical order. The single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals is slightly heavy, but nearly every clause carries useful information, so little is wasted.

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 5-param, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains filters, return fields, and safety caveats. It omits default-result behavior when no filters are supplied and any pagination/limit semantics, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every filter. The description still adds value by giving a broader specialty example list and clarifying that 'near' yields nearest-first ordering and that results include distance and nested services/doctors.

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 (Find) and resource (hospitals, clinics, dentists, labs, health centres, doctors) scoped to Addis Ababa, and names the data source (BinaSmart Health). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_hotels, search_cars, or even general search_places by its health-facility domain and provenance.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (locating health facilities/doctors in Addis) and enumerates the available filter dimensions (kind, sub-city, near, specialty). It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it or point to the overlapping sibling search_places, leaving the routing boundary to inference.

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