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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: pagination size (20 per page) and the shape of returned data (address, phone, distance, rating, provider counts, awards), which helps the agent anticipate results.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scope of facilities covered. Every clause carries information, though the return-field enumeration is slightly dense for a description whose output schema already exists.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't detail return values, and it covers the essentials of purpose and the type parameter. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its Healthgrades siblings.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description only lightly reinforces this, noting that type selects the facility kind and that rating values originate from the filters tool; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 exact resource (Healthgrades facilities) and enumerates the four facility kinds it covers. It also names the sibling tool healthgrades_facilities_filters for rating values, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from the filter tool 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 gives partial guidance: 'Use type to pick the facility kind' and routes the agent to healthgrades_facilities_filters for hospital rating values. However, it never states when to use this tool versus healthgrades_physicians_search, healthgrades_hospital, or healthgrades_facility, and offers no exclusions.

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