Search NHS Organisations

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the data source (ODS ORD directory), the return payload (ODS codes, names, statuses, primary roles), and the requirement for at least one search parameter. It doesn't mention pagination details or error handling, but the schema covers limit/offset/status defaults.

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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add the requirement and return info. Every clause earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential high-level semantics: what it searches, what it returns, and the input constraint. The schema fills in parameter defaults and enums. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination behavior or explicitly directing to organisations_get when an ODS code is known, but the current description is adequate for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly naming the three searchable parameters (name, role, postcode) and clarifying that at least one is required, which is not obvious from the schema since all properties are optional. It also highlights that combinations are allowed ('at least one').

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Search for NHS organisations', then specifies the search axes (name, role, postcode) and the directory (ODS ORD). It also lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like organisations_get (likely by ODS code) and organisations_relationships.

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 clear context: search by name/role/postcode, and mandates 'At least one search parameter (name, role, or postcode) is required.' It implies the tool is for finding organisations when you don't have an ODS code, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like organisations_get.

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