Get Facilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description only adds the search-by-name and limit/offset behavior, which is already present in the schema, so no meaningful extra behavioral context is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence contains the essential information: the action, resource, search criterion, and pagination parameters. No filler or redundancy.

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 the simple tool shape, full schema coverage, readOnly annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It only lacks explicit guidance on search matching semantics (exact vs. partial) and differentiation from sibling tools.

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 the input schema fully documents name, limit, and offset. The description's mention of 'optional limit and offset parameters' adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('facilities data from Garoon') with clear scoping ('by searching facility names'). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'garoon-get-facilities-in-group', but the search-by-name scope is reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use it—when you need facilities matched by name—but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives like garoon-get-facilities-in-group or how to choose between similar get tools.

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