Match Practice to Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: returns up to 5 ranked matches, mentions scoring based on EHR compatibility, and outlines the return fields. 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 and well-structured: it begins with the core purpose, lists return fields, provides usage guidelines, and mentions related tools. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return structure, when to use versus alternatives, and how to act on results. Annotations handle safety, so no gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the 'ehr_system' parameter ('Helps score providers with compatible integrations higher'), improving understanding beyond the schema. However, it does not add meaning for other parameters, staying at a solid 4.

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's verb (score and rank), resource (healthcare service providers), and scope (for a specific medical practice profile). It lists the criteria (specialty, size, etc.) and return fields, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_providers'.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'Use this when the user has practice-specific criteria and wants scored recommendations — for open-ended browsing, use search_providers instead.' Also tells the user to pass a match's slug to 'get_provider_detail' for the full profile.

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