search_facilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior (unified query across fields), filtering by reservable_only, and pagination response field (has_more). These details add transparency beyond the parameter names, though it does not mention response format or error handling.

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 concise, using bullet points effectively. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential details in a few sentences without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only a subset of filtering options (e.g., missing free_only, facility_type_code, region, district) and does not describe the return structure beyond has_more. The agent lacks critical details to fully leverage the tool's filtering capabilities.

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 description covers semantics for 4 out of 9 parameters (org_code, query, reservable_only, page implicitly). Parameters like region, district, facility_type_code, free_only, and limit are not explained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds value but leaves significant gaps for half the parameters.

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 searches facilities managed by public institutions, specifies the use of org_code from search_institutions, and explains the query field's unified search across facility name, institution name, usage method, and address. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_institutions (institutions) and get_facility_profile (single 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?

The description provides explicit context by explaining that org_code comes from search_institutions, how filtering with reservable_only works, and pagination instructions via 'has_more'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_facility_profile for specific facilities.

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