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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 12-result page limit and that results are returned as card fields, but it does not explain sorting, total counts, behavior with no criteria, or what exactly the card fields contain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the search purpose, followed immediately by pagination and return-shape information. There is no wasted wording.

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 four-parameter search tool, the definition covers the purpose, search facets, page size, and return format at a high level. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves open how criteria combine, how empty searches behave, and what 'card fields' means, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 schema already documents q, city, district, and page. The description maps the search criteria to those parameters but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search long-term care facilities by city, district, or name. This is clear enough to distinguish it in practice from detail-oriented siblings like get_facility, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives such as get_facility for details or list_city_counts/list_district_counts for counts. The search criteria imply a use case, but that is not the same as routing guidance.

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