search_nearby_hospitals

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful limitation: results are based on an 'estimated straight-line walking time' rather than actual routing. However, it does not describe result limits, ordering, or other operational behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part earns its place, and the core action plus key constraint is communicated immediately.

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 an output schema present and the required latitude/longitude expressed in the input schema, the core invocation is reasonably reachable: provide a location and optional walking time. However, optional filter semantics and broader tool-selection context are left incomplete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by clarifying parameters. It only loosely relates to max_walk_minutes via 'walking time' and does not explain latitude/longitude as the search origin, department_code, or include_departments.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') on a specific resource ('hospitals') and adds a clear constraint: estimated straight-line walking time. This is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling tools like search_nearby_bus_stops and search_nearby_markets.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer its usage purely from the resource type and sibling tool naming.

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