hcp_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the partial-match behavior but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a list, count, or structured profiles), whether results are paginated, or any limits on result size. This is a significant gap for a search operation.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose without any filler. The key search dimensions are front-loaded, and the partial-match note is appended logically. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks essential details such as the return format (does it return a list? a single best match?), any pagination hints, or error behavior (e.g., empty results). Given the simplicity of the tool, the missing return information is a notable gap.

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 schema already documents the 'query' parameter with examples and 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying the three accepted search dimensions (name, NPI, institution) and clarifying that matching is partial, which goes beyond the schema's single string example.

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 action (search), the resource (HCPs), and the specific search dimensions (name, NPI, institution). It also mentions partial match, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't name sibling tools, its distinct search function is evident from the description alone.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to find HCPs by partial criteria), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like hcp_list_hcps for listing all HCPs or hcp_get_profile for retrieving a specific profile. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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