find_operators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses result ordering ('Largest first'), the default and maximum result count (10, max 50), that modality is a substring match, that query words are ANDed, that accents/case are normalized, and a non-obvious domain caveat that head office is not where the operator sells plans. It does not state pagination behavior or explicitly frame the operation as read-only, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then usage, then an Args block, then the return shape — a clean, scannable structure. The modality enumeration is long but each value is a legitimate allowed input, and every section earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, how matching works, ordering, limits, cancellation handling, and even a summary of returned fields. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the six parameters is explained with examples, defaults (limit default 10, max 50; include_cancelled semantics), and matching rules (substring for modality, all-words-must-match for query, accent/case insensitivity). This adds real meaning that the bare schema titles could never convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — find Brazilian health-plan operators registered with ANS — and immediately gives the two concrete jobs it performs (brand name → ANS registry number, or listing by geography/type). This is clearly a discovery/lookup tool, distinguishable from siblings like operator_profile, compare_operators and rank_operators which operate on already-identified operators.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering scenario ('turn a brand the user mentions ("Unimed BH", "Amil") into the ANS registry number') and the alternative scenario (list by state, city or type), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It does not name sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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