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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields (ownership classification per Medicare, city, main phone number) and the downstream implication (nonprofits must have a financial assistance policy).

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 compact sentences: purpose, example queries, and returned content. The opening sentence largely restates the title, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is padded and the useful return-value information comes early.

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 correctly takes on describing the return values (ownership category, city, phone, financial-assistance meaning). This is sufficient for a simple 3-parameter lookup; only edge cases like hospitals not found in Medicare data are unaddressed.

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 name/city/state are already documented, including the disambiguation rationale. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific resource (hospital ownership/nonprofit status) and the domain purpose (financial assistance eligibility), and it is clearly not a price or bill tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the subject matter differentiates it from check_price, check_whole_bill, and search_services well enough.

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?

Concrete example questions ("is St. Luke's in Boise a nonprofit?", "does this hospital have to offer charity care?") make the triggering context clear. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives, but no overlap with siblings is apparent, so the implied usage is strong.

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