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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses the result cap (up to 100 names) and the deliberate omission of contact details and roles, which shapes how the agent should interpret the response.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the exclusion trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the shape (display names, no contact details or roles) and the 100-item cap. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the clinicId format and required status are already documented in the schema. The description's 'for one practice' only loosely reinforces the scoping parameter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (doctors, nurses, assistants who take bookings), and scopes it to a single practice. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like list_rooms or get_clinic_availability without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger ('when someone asks which doctors, nurses or assistants patients can book') and adds a clear exclusion ('Not for staff holidays or sick days'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool for the excluded case, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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