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

The supplied annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the upstream data source (SIRS Kemenkes), which is genuinely useful context about provenance and freshness expectations. It says nothing about pagination behaviour, how many rows a default call returns, or whether filters are combined with AND semantics.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its source come before the filter remark. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given six parameters.

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, paginated list tool with no output schema and only 33% parameter documentation, a single sentence leaves too much unanswered: default page size (50, max 200), whether results are paged or truncated, and the expected format of provinsi_id/kabupaten_id. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or efficiently.

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 33%: only jenis and kelas carry descriptions (the enum values make those self-explanatory). Page, per_page, provinsi_id and kabupaten_id are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description's generic 'optional filters' does not say that the ID filters expect wilayah codes or how page and per_page interact. The description therefore does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Indonesian hospitals') plus the upstream source ('SIRS Kemenkes'), which is more informative than the bare title 'List hospitals'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools rs_search and rs_get, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when a list is preferable to a search or a single-record lookup.

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 phrase 'with optional filters' at most hints that the caller may narrow results. It never names the alternatives (rs_search, rs_get) or states conditions such as 'use this when you want to enumerate all hospitals in a province rather than match a name'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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