bag_health_mcp__search_health_indicators

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context: the data is aggregated population statistics, not individual advice or diagnosis, and notes limitations (e.g., cantonal breakdowns are rare). No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but not overly verbose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses structured tags (use_case, important_notes, example) for readability. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 complexity of searching across three sources with multiple parameters, the description covers key aspects: sources, output use, limitations (national focus), and example. It references the output schema indirectly via the downstream tool, making it complete for selection and 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 has detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description's contribution is modest. However, it adds value by explaining source semantics ('obsan', 'versorgungsatlas', 'suchtschweiz') and providing an example that illustrates topic and source usage.

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 it searches health indicators across three Swiss sources. It specifies the output (matching indicator_ids) and the downstream tool (bag_health_mcp__get_indicator_series). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_series or get_series_details.

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 includes a use case tag and an example, guiding when to use: before fetching a series. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but it provides enough context to infer appropriate usage.

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