Get Facility Detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds transparency by disclosing partial name matching and best match behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and what it returns, followed by a brief note on matching behavior and usage context. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

With one simple parameter, rich annotations, and a clear description of return values (even without an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and data details sufficiently for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter 'name' with full schema description coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description in the schema already explains the parameter well. The main description adds little beyond the schema for parameter meaning, but it does mention partial matching behavior which is marginally useful.

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 retrieves the full profile of one specific treatment facility, listing specific attributes (address, phone, programs, insurance, SAMHSA status, browse URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying to use after search_facilities for drilling into a named facility.

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 explicitly mentions when to use: 'Use after search_facilities when the user wants to drill into a named facility.' It also notes partial name matching and best match behavior. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the guidance is clear and contextual.

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