search_facilities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds global scope, example query, and return fields. Does not contradict annotations. Adds useful context but no deeper behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 focused sentences plus an example and exclusion note. No filler, front-loaded with essential information. Efficient structure.

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 search tool with 10 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains scope, example usage, and exclusions. Minor gap: no explicit mention of pagination behavior, but schema covers limit/offset.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions some parameters in example and lists return fields, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'data center facilities' with global scope (21,000+ facilities, 170+ countries). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives: not for pipeline (get_pipeline) or single facility (get_facility).

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?

Explicit instructions: 'Use this to find EXISTING facilities; do NOT use for the forward-looking construction pipeline (use get_pipeline) or for the full profile of one facility (use get_facility).' Clearly states when to use and when not, with named alternatives.

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