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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: up to 20 matches, best-first ordering, and that each result includes a page URL. It still omits edge-case behavior such as no-match responses, default limit behavior, or whether matching is fuzzy/prefix-based.

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 front-loaded and efficient: purpose, result shape, and follow-up action are covered in three short clauses with no wasted text.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential result shape and directs the agent to lookup_provider for full records. It is nearly complete, but the undocumented limit/default behavior and no-match behavior keep it from being fully self-contained.

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 67%, with query and state already documented in the schema. The description reinforces name and optional-state usage but does not explain the limit parameter, its default, or how it interacts with the stated 20-match 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?

States a specific search action on providers, clearly scoped to individual providers or organizations and optionally a state. The phrase "by name" distinguishes it from geographic siblings like nearby_providers, and it explicitly contrasts with lookup_provider for full records.

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 gives useful follow-up guidance by saying to use lookup_provider on a result for the full record. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over nearby_providers, list_facilities, or other search-like siblings, nor when not to use it.

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