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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact, that only 'published' providers are returned, but says nothing about result paging behavior or fallback semantics (typo/fuzzy matching) beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and facets come first. It is perhaps terse to a fault, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description leans entirely on the well-documented input schema. It never mentions result shape, pagination via `page.nextCursor`, or that slug parameters require lookups from sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a search endpoint.

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%, including the `sort` enum semantics and the `cursor` resend rule, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description's grouping of 'text, place and category' loosely maps to the q/city/region/country/category families but adds no format or precedence detail of its own.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('published opioid treatment providers') plus the three facets (text, place, category) the query can use. This clearly separates it from get_listing (single fetch) and list_categories/list_places (lookup lists). It stops short of naming those siblings alongside itself, but the boundary is obvious.

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 phrase 'by text, place and category' implies how to drive the tool, and 'published' hints at a scope restriction on results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_listing or when to pre-fetch slugs via /places and /categories, so usage must be inferred.

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