health.hospital-quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns quality ratings and measure summaries, which is the core behavior. However, it omits details like data freshness, rate limits, or response structure, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data scope, and search methods. Every part adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the output includes overall star rating and measure summaries, which is helpful given no output schema. It also sets context with the number of hospitals. However, it does not address pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters.

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 33% (only facilityId and name have descriptions). The description adds meaning for facilityId (CMS certification number) and name (partial match), but does not elaborate on state, city, limit, or offset beyond their names. It partially compensates for low coverage.

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 it provides CMS Care Compare hospital quality ratings including overall star rating and measure summaries. It specifies the data scope (~5,300 hospitals) and search methods (by facilityId or filters). This distinguishes it from siblings like health.hospital-lookup.

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 explains when to use facilityId versus state/city/name filters, providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives but adequately covers primary use cases.

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