Find a specific facility

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already declared. The description adds valuable context: it states the tool returns full metrics, two-year history, and affiliation, and importantly clarifies that affiliation is not ownership proof. This goes beyond structured annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose and method are front-loaded, followed by return details and a usage example. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

For a read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: query method, optional filter, what is returned (including the affiliation caveat), and a concrete usage example. No critical missing information such as pagination or error handling, which the output schema likely handles. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 descriptions already cover query (CCN or name fragment) and state (optional 2-letter). The description restates these without adding new meaning; limit's constraints are encoded in the schema (default, max, min). Since schema coverage is 67% and the most relevant parameters are described, the description does not significantly enhance semantics beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up'), a precise resource (CMS-certified nursing facilities), and the lookup methods (CCN exact or name fragment). It also indicates the scope ('individual facilities') and differentiates from broader tools by referencing drill-downs, making it clear this is for single-facility lookups.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use example ('Use for drill-downs like...') and notes the optional state filter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., operator_facilities), so exclusion guidance is missing.

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