Search Treatment Facilities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the search scope (state required, optional other filters) and what the response includes (matched facilities with fields listed). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful information about the tool's non-destructive, idempotent nature.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and usage plus a one-sentence cross-reference to sibling tools. Front-loading the key action and output, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, output fields, required state parameter, and links to sibling tools. However, it does not mention default limit behavior (schema covers this) nor pagination, but those are minor gaps.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description summarizes the parameter usage but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting; the description provides high-level context without enriching parameter details.

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 searches a curated SAMHSA-sourced directory of 12,338 US addiction treatment facilities by state, city, treatment type, and insurance, and lists what it returns (name, city/state, programs, insurance, phone, browse URL). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by directing to get_facility_detail for full profiles and list_states for location coverage.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Search the directory... Use this to find candidates — then call get_facility_detail for one facility's full profile.' It also tells when to use alternatives: 'If the user is uncertain about location coverage, call list_states first' and implicitly references get_treatment_types for treatment type uncertainty.

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