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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds the single-practice scope and enumerates return fields, but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or behavior when the practice id is unknown.

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 compact sentences, trigger condition front-loaded, no filler. The return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, so it is efficient but not perfectly trimmed.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a declared output schema, the description covers when to use it and what it is not for. The remaining gap is un-named alternatives for the excluded case.

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 description coverage is 100% for the sole clinicId parameter, including its 24-hex-character pattern, so the schema carries full burden. The description adds no format or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Get medical practice details') and scopes it to a single practice's setup, which separates it from list_clinics. The exclusion 'Not for free consultation times' gestures at get_clinic_availability but never names it, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when someone asks about one medical practice's setup, such as its currency, language or timezone') plus one explicit negative case. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use instead.

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