Search California ALW facilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'at most 50 records' return cap and the explicit caveat that results 'do not imply current vacancy.' These are meaningful operational disclosures that help the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states the search scope and filter dimensions, second adds the critical return cap and the vacancy caveat. No filler, no redundancy with the schema field names it mentions (name/address/county/city/ZIP map directly to the parameters). Front-loaded with the core verb+resource.

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 read-only search tool with 80% schema coverage, 5 optional params, and no output schema, this description is largely adequate. It names all filter dimensions, specifies the 50-record ceiling, and warns about vacancy meaning. The subtle gap: it doesn't note that all params are optional and what happens with no filters (would it return broadly?), and semantics like 'does not imply current vacancy' hint at a data freshness limitation that could be stated more directly.

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 80% (4 of 5 params documented; 'limit' has no description but has default/min/max). The description enumerates the search dimensions (name/address text, county, city, ZIP) which mirrors the schema. It adds modest value by clarifying 'query' accepts provider number as well, though mostly it restates what the schema already covers. With 80% coverage, baseline is 3; the provider-number mention nudges it slightly higher.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Search' with clear resource 'public DHCS participating-provider records' and concrete filter dimensions (name/address text, county, city, ZIP). Effectively distinguishes from siblings: siblings return program/county summaries and methodology, while this tool searches facility records. The origin (DHCS) and public-scope qualifier add precision.

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 clearly states the search scope (participating-provider records) and adds the important caveat about results not implying current vacancy, which guides interpretation. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs. get_program_summary or get_county_summary, and there's no mention that all parameters are optional or how they combine. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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