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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are matched via Indian-name signal from public data and includes a confidence_score, indicating potential accuracy concerns. No contradictions.

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 concise: first sentence states purpose, second sentence details parameters and behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 11 parameters (0 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers major parameters and behavioral context. Lacks mention of pagination (limit/offset) but this is partially mitigated by output schema. Overall well-rounded.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the role of lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, profession_type, speciality, tag, and open_now. It does not cover limit, offset, or confidence_score (likely output), but adds significant value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds Indian-American healthcare professionals, specifying the action ('find') and resource types (doctors, dentists, clinics, pharmacies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_professionals_by_text by emphasizing structured location and filter parameters.

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 provides clear usage patterns: provide a point (lat+lng+radius_miles) or city/state, and filter by profession_type, speciality, tag, or open_now. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like search_professionals_by_text, but the guidance is sufficient for basic usage.

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