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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the specific return fields, the dataset source, and the supported filtering dimensions. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only search that gap is minor.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently packs return fields and filter dimensions into a single follow-up sentence.

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?

For a read-only search with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: the source dataset, the return fields, and the filter criteria. Pagination defaults and exact output structure are left to the schema and general conventions, but those are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents state, city, limit, offset, and name_contains. The description restates state/city/name filters in plain language but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Medicare-certified hospitals from the CMS Hospital General Information dataset.' It clearly states what the tool returns and what filters are available. The word 'hospitals' distinguishes it from sibling tools covering home health, hospice, and nursing homes, even without naming them explicitly.

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 provides clear operational context: use this search when you need hospitals filtered by state, city, or partial facility name. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it just below a full routing guideline.

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