get_medical_institutions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses parameter behaviors like default limit and pagination but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication/rate limits, or describe error/empty-result 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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted args list. Every line adds useful information and there is no redundant or promotional text.

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 covers all five parameters and their defaults, and an output schema exists so return values do not need restatement. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on optional/required combinations (e.g., whether latlng and range must be used together), but overall it is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

The schema provides no description coverage for parameters, but the description compensates fully by explaining the latlng format with an example, range units in meters, comma-separated districts, limit default, and offset purpose. Each parameter is given actionable semantics.

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 opens with 'Get healthcare facilities in Prague', a specific verb-object-location statement. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data tools like get_bicycle_counters or get_parking_lots.

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 implies use whenever healthcare facility data is needed but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling-tool comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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