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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the upstream data source and the returned attribute set (ownership type, emergency-services flag, star rating 1-5), which is genuine added context for a read tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the purpose and scope lead, and the filter capabilities follow. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain — no pagination behavior or dataset-vintage notes — for a five-parameter search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's filter dimensions (state, city, partial name) without adding syntax, defaults, or matching semantics (e.g., how partial matching behaves, case sensitivity, pagination interaction).

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search Medicare-certified hospitals from the CMS Hospital General Information dataset.' The resource is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from cms_home_health_search, cms_hospice_search, and cms_nursing_home_search by facility type, though the description never explicitly names those 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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives — despite three obvious parallel CMS facility tools in the toolset. 'Filter by state, city, and partial facility-name match' is a restatement of filter dimensions rather than routing advice.

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