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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact scope of the returned card (7-day window, cap of 12 service prices) and the important caveat 'no patient or clinical data', which bounds what an agent may claim from the result.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and then the return scope; no filler. The enumerated return list is somewhat long given an output schema exists, keeping it just short of maximal conciseness.

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 full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to reach for it, what the card contains, how far ahead it looks, and the explicit exclusion of patient/clinical data. No material gap remains.

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% and the single clinicId parameter is fully documented with its hex pattern, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the implicit notion of a single practice; it contributes no extra syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('quick overview or dashboard of one medical practice') and enumerates the payload: practice details, 7-day appointment counts, staff/room counts, booking slots, up to 12 service prices, and plan. It also carves out its boundary ('Not for a single patient or visit'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_clinic_schedule_summary and list_clinics without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this when someone wants a quick overview or dashboard of one medical practice' gives an explicit trigger, and 'Not for a single patient or visit' supplies an exclusion. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for those adjacent needs, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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