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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the wildcard gotcha (trailing '*' with a 2-char minimum) and the API version (NPPES Read API v2.1), which is modestly useful, but it says nothing about rate limits, result shape, or whether any filter is mandatory. Comparable in value to the calibration 'date range' example, so a 3.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope before the wildcard caveat and version tag. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing version note is low-value filler for an agent choosing a tool.

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 9-parameter, zero-required read tool with high schema coverage, the core intent is covered, but two things are missing: whether at least one filter is required to get meaningful results, and any hint of the returned NPI organization record (no output schema exists to carry that). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all nine parameters (including limits, skip pagination bounds, state/postal_code formats, address_purpose enum) are already documented. The description only restates the organization_name wildcard and the taxonomy partial-match rule the schema already carries, adding no new syntax or semantics. Baseline 3.

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 (Search) plus the resource and scope (ORGANIZATION healthcare providers, NPI-2), and enumerates examples (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, labs). The uppercase ORGANIZATION / NPI-2 framing cleanly separates it from the sibling nppes_search_individuals without opening either schema.

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?

It names the usable filter dimensions (organization name, taxonomy/specialty, location), which implies when the tool applies, but never names an alternative tool or states an exclusion (e.g., use nppes_search_individuals for people). Routing is left to inference from the ORGANIZATION capitalization.

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