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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what is excluded from the response, helping the agent set expectations about the data scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated in a compact second sentence with no redundant wording.

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?

The tool has a single parameter fully described by the schema, an output schema to define return values, and robust annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description sufficiently clarifies the resource scope and exclusions, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents clinicId and its 24-character hex pattern. The description adds that the clinic must be a tenant-owned DoctoFam clinic, providing useful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'get' and the specific resource: administrative plan status and entitlement limits for a tenant-owned clinic. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly excluding billing, payment, patient, and clinical data, making its scope unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool is for administrative plan status and entitlement limits, not for billing or clinical details. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling, so it stops short of full usage routing.

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