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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavior: results come from OpenStreetMap, are ordered nearest-first, and include address, phone only 'if listed', and a directions link — the conditional phone hint usefully signals that results can be incomplete. It stops short of noting OSM coverage gaps or how many results come back by default.

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; every clause (facility types, place types, source, sort order, returned fields) carries information an agent needs. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, ordering, and the shape of returned data, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. The remaining gap is defaults for `kind` and `limit`, which are neither in the description nor the schema.

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 only 33%: only `place` is described ('e.g. Adyar, Chennai'). The description does clarify `place` accepts a city, area, or address, which adds meaning beyond the schema example, and its enumeration of facility types maps onto the `kind` enum. However, it never states the default for `kind` or `limit`, nor what 'any' means, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 ('Finds') plus the exact resources it returns (hospitals, clinics, labs, pharmacies) scoped to a place, and names the data source (OpenStreetMap) and sort order (nearest first). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_teleconnect_clinicians or find_health_guide, which are directory/guidance tools rather than proximity search.

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 'near a place (city, area or address)' phrasing implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to an alternative for telehealth or non-geographic lookups. An agent must infer that this tool is for geographic facility discovery rather than being told.

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