samhsa_treatment_search

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Find' aligns with that, so no contradiction. The description adds the fact that the tool searches by location and that service type determines the type of facilities returned. It doesn't disclose details like default limit (though schema provides limit description), but the readOnlyHint covers safety. The description adds modest context beyond the annotation.

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: first states purpose and key input, second explains service types. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple search tool with 3 parameters, 1 required, and a clear output type (facility list). With readOnlyHint annotation and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose and service type. It doesn't describe the return format, but no output schema exists; however, given the simplicity and strong schema, the lack of return-format detail is a minor 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 100%, with 'address' described as 'Address, city/state, or ZIP code (e.g. 'Washington, DC' or '20001')' and serviceType fully explained via enum. The description adds a concise summary of service types, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find substance abuse and mental health treatment facilities by location.' It names the specific resource (SAMHSA treatment facilities), the action (find/search), and the primary filter (location). It also briefly explains service types, distinguishing it from siblings like 'cms_search' or 'clinical_trials_search'.

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 indicates the tool is for searching treatment facilities by location and lists service types (SA, MH, BOTH), giving context for when it would be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast it with other SAMHSA-related or health facility tools, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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