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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that each site is entity-resolved into NPPES (matched_npi/match_method), mentions the added_since parameter as a new-site trigger, and includes the price per call. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status, but the search nature and pricing imply no destructive effects.

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 two sentences plus a list, covering purpose, entity resolution, use cases, filters, and pricing. It is information-dense but not overly long; every sentence earns its place. However, the list of filters could be integrated more concisely.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core functionality, entity resolution, and available filters. However, it omits pagination details and what fields are returned in the response, which would improve completeness.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for added_since ('new-site trigger') and mentions several filters by name, but does not add much beyond what the schema already describes for standard parameters like sort, limit, and offset.

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 discovers FQHC/Look-Alike health-center sites from the HRSA roster, and lists specific filter criteria (state, type, county, name, added_since). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hrsa_coveredEntities340b_search and hrsa_hpsa_search by focusing on health center sites and entity resolution.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for pharma-sales, medical-device, and staffing targeting involving FQHCs. It lists concrete filters but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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