find_institutions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the exact result fields, the caveat that statistics are per ULS/group rather than per building, the non-obvious rule that umbrella ULS entries are skipped when only lat/lon is given, and that live wait times are out of scope.

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-loads the purpose and the when-to-use rule before the result shape and an Args block, so an agent can stop reading early. Slightly long, and the result-shape sentence overlaps with the existing output schema, but nothing is wasted filler.

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?

Covers purpose, ordering relative to siblings, all parameters, result contents, and the important domain caveat that stats attach to ULS/groups. An output schema exists, so the brief return summary is bonus rather than a gap.

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 must compensate, and it does for all five parameters: query is accent-insensitive with examples, lat/lon are WGS84 with a worked example and a behavioral side effect, emergency_only is defined as 'only places that report emergency-department data', and limit gives default and max.

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 SNS hospitals / local health units (ULS)') with both lookup modes — by name or by proximity to a coordinate. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling *_stats tools, which it explicitly routes to rather than duplicating.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Use this first when the user names a hospital or a place', with two concrete example queries, then instructs passing `stats_entity` into emergency_stats / surgery_wait_stats / consultation_wait_stats. It also states an exclusion — no live waiting times, send the user to the external URL instead.

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