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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard result cap of 50, which tells the agent results may be truncated. It says nothing about match semantics, ordering, or what identifiers come back, so the addition is modest.

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 short sentences, the capability first and the result cap second. No filler, nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers the essentials: what is searched, against which field, and how many results come back. A note on how to retrieve full details via rs_get would have closed the remaining gap, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that the single parameter q is matched against hospital name rather than address or code. What it does not clarify is matching behavior (exact/prefix/substring) or the two-character minimum baked into the schema, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ("Search hospitals") plus the search field (name), so the agent knows this is a name-based lookup rather than a listing or detail fetch. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the very similar siblings rs_list and rs_get, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over rs_list when you have a name fragment, or to follow up with rs_get for detail. The description also omits any minimum-length or matching-behavior caveats (e.g. prefix vs substring), even though the schema enforces minLength 2.

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