provider_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether results are paginated, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of providers with details). For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and searchable fields. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the core purpose.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like result limits or sorting. For a search tool with multiple inputs and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to help an agent use it effectively.

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 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions: taxonomy, state, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions searching by 'name, specialty, or location,' which maps to firstName/lastName/organizationName, taxonomy, and city/state, but doesn't explain semantics like how name matching works or what taxonomy codes represent. It partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 purpose: 'Search the NPI provider directory' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., provider_enrich, provider_payments) by focusing on search rather than enrichment or payment analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from trials_search, which also searches but for different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what can be searched (name, specialty, location) but doesn't specify when to choose this over sibling tools like provider_enrich or when not to use it (e.g., for non-NPI data). There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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