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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds meaningful context: 'Powered by Gemini embeddings + cosine similarity over full doctor profiles', explaining the search mechanism and scope. No contradictions with 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?

Only two sentences: first states purpose with an illustrative example, second explains the technology and optimal use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, technology, usage guidance, and parameter hints. The annotations and sibling context are also available. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides an example query (e.g., 'board-certified facelift surgeon in Los Angeles with great reviews and free consults') that clarifies the natural-language style, adding value beyond the schema description.

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 'Search NavMDs' 7,400+ doctor directory with a natural-language query' – clear verb+resource. Cites example and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by calling it 'Best tool for open-ended or multi-attribute questions'.

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?

Begins with general purpose, then says 'Best tool for open-ended or multi-attribute questions' – provides context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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