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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail no annotation carries: coordinates and internal metadata are omitted from the result, telling the agent what it will and won't get back.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the read-only/open-world profile, so the description needn't explain returns. What it provides (trigger condition, omitted fields) is sufficient for an agent to call this single-param resolver correctly; only sibling routing detail is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('City, state, or ZIP code'). The description repeats the accepted input forms but adds no format, length, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (resolve) and resource (city/state/ZIP term to Healthgrades location suggestions) plus its position in the workflow ('before provider search'). This distinguishes it from the many generic search siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the near-neighbor healthgrades_autocomplete.

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?

'Use when a search needs a location' gives clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating exclusions (e.g., versus healthgrades_autocomplete or healthgrades_top_searches), so it is clear but not complete routing guidance.

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