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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope (Medicare-certified, CMS Hospice Compare) and return-field information, but doesn't disclose operational behavior such as pagination, update cadence, or response structure; that's modest context beyond annotations.

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 with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the return content, and every word contributes.

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 and four optional parameters, the description usefully names the return categories and source, while the schema fully documents parameter meanings. Nothing needed to select and call the tool 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 100%, so all four parameters (limit, state, offset, name_contains) are already documented with clear meanings and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond naming the search resource, so it stays at the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Medicare-certified hospice agencies'), and the data source ('CMS Hospice Compare'). It also lists expected return fields, and the hospice-specific wording distinguishes it from sibling CMS facility-search tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 intended use is inferable from 'hospice agencies' and 'CMS Hospice Compare', but the description never explicitly contrasts it with cms_hospital_search, cms_nursing_home_search, or cms_home_health_search, nor gives when-not-to-use conditions. This is clear implied context rather than explicit routing guidance.

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