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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the source and pricing, but does not mention pagination behavior (though limit/offset are in schema), rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences plus a source and price note. Front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence 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?

Given 17 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case but omits details like default limit (25), how to combine parameters, and the structure of results. Adequate but not fully complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists key filters (state, city, type, control, beds, discharges, revenues, operating margin) which adds semantic context, but does not explain parameter formats (e.g., state as two-letter code) or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Partial compensation.

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 'Search US hospitals by...' with specific filter dimensions and answers a concrete question: 'which hospitals in a market match a financial or operational profile?' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hcris_hospital_byCcn (search by CCN) and carecompare tools.

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 for hospital search by profile and mentions the data source (CMS cost reports), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, such as when to use hcris_hospital_financials instead, or provide exclusion criteria.

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