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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the 50-row cap, that rows include page URLs, and that the full list/CSV is available at the state page URL. It still omits permissions, error behavior, and whether the operation is explicitly read-only, but the key output-size and full-data behavior is well covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource types and location scope, then the row limit and full-list source. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

There is no output schema and low schema description coverage, so the description should be fuller. It covers the core listing scope and output cap, but leaves gaps around the limit parameter's default behavior and the full set of returned row fields.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It expands the kind enum into human-readable facility types and clarifies city is optional, but it does not explain the limit parameter explicitly or clarify its default behavior beyond the 50-row cap.

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 names the resource types and location scope (state, optionally city), so an agent can tell it is a filtered facility listing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as search_providers or nearby_providers, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 state/city scope implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like search_providers or nearby_providers. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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