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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that results are a list with specific fields and mentions connector compatibility, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or rate limiting. The description adds modest value 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?

The description is two sentences: first states purpose and output format, second provides actionable guidance and compatibility note. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world, the description is fairly complete. It specifies return fields and links to 'fetch'. However, it lacks details on result limits or pagination, and the open-world hint is not elaborated. Slight gaps prevent a 5.

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% with the single 'query' parameter described as 'Free-text search query.' The description adds 'free-text query' which is synonymous. No additional semantics or format details are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'NavMDs doctors', and the method 'free-text query'. It also specifies the return format and suggests using the 'fetch' tool for full profiles, which differentiates it from 'fetch'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_doctors' or 'semantic_search_doctors', leaving potential confusion.

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 guidance to use 'fetch' for detailed profiles after searching, but it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_doctors' or 'semantic_search_doctors'. There are no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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