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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'published' scope qualifier, which is meaningful but thin; it says nothing about result shape or how matching/fuzzy behavior works despite the schema hinting at close-match fallback.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity for an eight-parameter search tool borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With params fully documented and safety covered by annotations, no output schema is strictly required. However, the description omits what the results actually contain, the existence of pagination via cursor, and the fact that unpublished listings are excluded, which leaves an agent with an incomplete picture of a fairly rich search surface.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in detail, including slugs, defaults, enum semantics and cursor pagination. The description's 'text, place and category' grouping adds only a light thematic mapping over what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search published hospitals') and scopes it to three axes (text, place, category), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_listing and list_places. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. The word 'published' implies a scope restriction, but the description never states the condition that selects this tool over get_listing, or that unpublished entries are excluded, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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