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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'search'. It lacks information on read-only nature, destructive potential, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a price tag. It front-loads the purpose and adds relevant context like data source and cost. Every word adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values, pagination, or limits. It provides source and price but omits behavioral and output details, making it only somewhat complete.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for three parameters: 'state', 'CCN', and 'name' (mapped to 'name_search'). However, 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) by state, CCN, or name. The resource (ASCs) and verb (search) are specific, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like hcris_hospital_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 description implies usage by answering 'which ASCs are in a given market?' but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context from sibling tools helps, but direct exclusion guidelines are missing.

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