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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result is tenant-scoped, safe, and restricted to non-clinical metadata. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, even though it does not discuss error/not-found 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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first names the operation and scope, the second sets response expectations. There is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name.

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 simple single-parameter read-only getter with an output schema and complete annotations, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar-looking siblings such as show_clinic_overview.

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 only parameter, clinicId, is already fully documented in the schema with type and format ('24-character hex'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation: fetch metadata for a single clinic. It adds useful scoping with 'tenant-owned' and 'non-clinical,' which helps distinguish the tool from clinical or scheduling siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'safe metadata' and 'Only non-clinical clinic metadata is returned' gives an agent a clear sense of when to use this tool: for basic, read-only clinic metadata rather than availability or schedule details. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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