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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing bounded cursor-based pagination and clarifying that the response contains only non-clinical metadata, which helps set expectations about data scope.

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 with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the pagination and data-scope constraints are stated efficiently.

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 two-parameter list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: whose clinics, what kind of data, and how pagination works. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is only 50%, since limit has no description. The description compensates by framing the pagination model: 'bounded, cursor-based pagination' indicates that limit controls page size and cursor is the opaque continuation token, adding meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated user's DoctoFam clinics') and adds a scope boundary ('Only non-clinical clinic metadata is returned'). This makes it clearly distinct from single-clinic siblings like get_clinic and from clinical detail tools like get_clinic_availability.

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 'authenticated user's... clinics' implies this is for retrieving the caller's own clinics, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings such as get_clinic or show_clinic_overview, nor does it state any exclusions.

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