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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real value beyond them: the results-pagination limitation, the exclusion of radiation safety data, and an explicit pricing model (per-successful-call, x402, failed calls free). It stops short of describing auth flow details but adds substantial operational context.

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 front-loaded paragraph where the resource and scope come first, followed by limitations and pricing. Dense but most sentences carry information; the pricing sentence is lengthy but relevant.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the key gaps: page-limit truncation, excluded radiation data, and cost. Adequate for an agent to decide and call correctly, though no explicit alternative routing is given.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (state two-letter code, max 1-50) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (FDA MQSA certified mammography facilities), scopes it to one US state, and enumerates the returned fields (name, phone, city, ZIP, facility ID). This clearly distinguishes it from the dozens of other health registry siblings.

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 state-level scoping implies when the tool applies, but nothing says when to prefer it over siblings or when it is inappropriate. The 'first results page only' note functions as a latent usage constraint rather than explicit guidance.

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