search_health_facilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Search Kenya health facilities' without disclosing what the tool returns (e.g., a list of facilities, details), whether it supports filtering, pagination, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 extremely short, consisting of a Swahili and English equivalent phrase. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the translation is redundant for the same content. It earns a high score for brevity, but the duplication reduces it slightly from a perfect 5.

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?

Considering the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the search returns or any limitations. It only states the general purpose, leaving the agent to infer the result format. The description is minimally viable but not complete enough for effective 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('level' and 'county') with descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters combine or expected input formats. Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for health facilities in Kenya with both English and Swahili text. It uses a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('health facilities'), and a geographic scope ('Kenya'), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which focus on maternal health and immunization indicators.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_maternal_health_indicators or get_immunization_coverage. There is no mention of when to use it, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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