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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the credential verification pipeline (NMC/RCI register checks, degree verification) and the lenient matching behavior. It adds real context beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss result caps or pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 tight sentences that lead with what the directory is and its verification guarantee, then cover filter optionality and matching semantics. No filler, nothing duplicated.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what results are, and it does so via the verification guarantee, which is the key trust signal for this directory. It stops short of describing result shape, count defaults, or ordering, which an agent might want for a 7-parameter search.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters, including enums and the limit default. The description's examples ('Mumbai', 'anxiety') largely restate the schema examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) plus resource (India's credential-verified mental-health therapist directory) and scope (verification-before-listing). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools get_therapist (single lookup) and list_filter_options (metadata).

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?

'All filters optional' and 'names are matched leniently' give useful directional context about how to call it, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_therapist, nor when a search is unnecessary. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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