health_facility_finder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Find accredited health facilities' and includes 'DEMO', but fails to describe behavior such as data freshness, output format, or any limits. The 'DEMO' hint suggests incomplete functionality but is not explicit.

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?

The description is a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' is somewhat extraneous and may mislead as to the tool's reliability, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

Given three parameters (one required) and no annotations or schema documentation coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain all parameters, expected input format, or return value structure, despite an output schema existing. An agent would lack critical details for correct invocation.

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. It only vaguely implies the 'county' parameter ('in a Kenya county/sub-county') and provides no explanation for 'level' or 'nhif_only'. Default values and types are left entirely to the schema.

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 tool name and description clearly specify the action ('Find'), resource ('accredited health facilities'), and scope ('in a Kenya county/sub-county'). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on different health topics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., chw_service_lookup, essential_medicines). The description does not mention prerequisites, optimal use cases, or exclusions.

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