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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not carrying the full behavioral burden. It adds little beyond that — the 'GET /locations' note and the field list are mild extras, with no pagination, rate-limit, or empty-result context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the returned fields, then the usage hint and raw endpoint. No filler.

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, annotation-backed list tool, the description covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. With no output schema, the parenthetical field list partially compensates; only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that subdomain defaults to NEXHEALTH_SUBDOMAIN. The description adds nothing about it, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented single param.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the practice locations for an institution') and even previews the returned fields (id, name, address). The resource is distinct enough from siblings like nexhealth_list_providers or nexhealth_list_operatories that no explicit differentiation is required, though it never states how it differs from those list 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?

'Good first call to discover location_ids for other tools' gives clear, actionable context for when to invoke it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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