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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: emergency results start with a safety line, output includes specific fields, listings come from public professional registers, and ranking is not paid. It also adds a boundary ('No clinical advice') that an agent should know.

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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by emergency behavior, return fields, source, and editorial boundary. Every sentence contributes, though a couple (source/no-pay/no-clinical-advice) could be considered optional for a terse definition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields and overall behavior. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has enough context to select and correctly invoke the tool for both normal and emergency searches.

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% and each parameter already has a rich description, so the tool description is not required to add parameter-level detail. The description reinforces emergency behavior and place-based searching but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the resource ('UK vet practices, vet hospitals, specialists and accredited practitioners') with a clear scope ('near a place, nearest first'). This clearly separates it from siblings like provider_details, medicine_prices, and procedure_prices.

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 clear context for when to call the tool: location-based provider searches, including an emergency variant with a fixed safety line. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intended use is evident from the content.

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