List an operator's CMS facilities

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description's job is to add behavioral detail. It discloses paging behavior (default 25 rows), that the summary block always covers ALL matching facilities regardless of pagination, and that operator names are resolved internally from free text. These are meaningful details beyond the readOnlyHint and help an agent anticipate behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise note on paging and summary scope. Every sentence adds useful information with no fluff. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 list-oriented tool with an output schema (present, though not detailed here), the description covers the essential behaviors: what is listed, the paging semantics, the summary coverage, and the free-text handling. It omits explicit mention of the state filter, but that is already in the schema description. Overall, an agent can invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 50%: operator and state have descriptions, while limit and offset do not. The description adds value by explaining free-text resolution for operator and clarifying the default page size, but it does not elaborate on how limit/offset interact or what offset means. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but not completely.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'CMS-certified nursing facilities affiliated with an operator', and enumerates specific output fields (star rating, staffing hours, beds, occupancy) plus an aggregate summary. It distinguishes itself by focusing on an operator's facilities via its CMS chain, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like portfolio_overview or find_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 practical context: it accepts free-text operator names, is paged with a default of 25 rows, and the summary covers all matches. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use portfolio_overview or operator_metrics), nor any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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