dododentist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned content is non-clinical metadata and tenant-owned, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The core action and key restriction are front-loaded, and the domain qualifier is compact. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter, read-only fetch operation. The input schema documents the parameter, the output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the key selection constraint, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, clinicId, is fully documented in the schema with type and pattern. The description does not need to restate parameter details; it adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Fetch safe metadata for one tenant-owned DodoDentist clinic') and clarifies scope with 'Only non-clinical clinic metadata is returned.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_clinic_availability and get_clinic_schedule_summary without needing to inspect their 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?

The description makes clear this returns general clinic metadata, not clinical data, availability, or schedules. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'non-clinical' qualifier provides enough context for an agent to choose this tool over the availability/schedule siblings.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency by clarifying that only day, slot start, and slot end are returned, never patient/provider/clinical data. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies what is not returned. Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description fully explains what is returned and what is excluded. It disambiguates from siblings and provides everything an agent needs to 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?

The input schema fully documents clinicId with a description and pattern (24-character hex). The description only restates the scope ('one clinic') without adding extra format, selection, or usage guidance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('bookable appointment slots'), and scope ('one tenant-owned DodoDentist clinic'). It also explicitly excludes patient, provider, and clinical data, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_calendar_events or list_clinic_providers without opening their 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?

The description gives clear context that this is for a single clinic's availability, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing UTC-day grouping, the 31-day range cap, and the strict exclusion of patient or clinical data. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying data-safety boundaries. Every phrase contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, time range, grouping, and data exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

All three parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaning by constraining the time range to at most 31 days and clarifying that results are aggregated by UTC day, which informs how startTime and endTime should be supplied.

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: count scheduled records by UTC day for one tenant-owned DodoDentist clinic. It sharply differentiates itself from sibling detail tools by stating it returns aggregate administrative counts only and never appointment identifiers, times, or clinical data.

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?

It clearly conveys the narrow context for use: one clinic, at most a 31-day range, and aggregate administrative counts rather than clinical detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of the top score.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that identifiers, staff references, titles, and notes are never returned, and mentions bounded pagination. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core function, and includes the most important constraints. Every phrase carries meaning, with no wasted words or repetition of schema information.

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 5 optional parameters and an output schema, and the description covers what is returned and what is not, plus the tenant scope. It does not elaborate on pagination mechanics or parameter usage, but the schema and output schema fill most gaps, leaving the description reasonably complete for a list operation.

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 80%, so most parameters (cursor, endTime, clinicId, startTime) already have descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, and the 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description and is not addressed in the description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool lists tenant-scoped non-appointment calendar blocks and enumerates specific types (courses, meetings, days off, closures). It also explicitly states what is never returned (event identifiers, staff references, titles, notes), distinguishing it from potential siblings like availability or schedule summary tools.

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 description gives clear context about the tool's scope (tenant-scoped, non-appointment) and what it does not return, helping an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when to prefer other tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that contact details, role records, identifiers, and clinical data are never returned, which helps an agent set expectations about the limited response 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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the negative-scope clarification is added only where it adds value.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the scope, the output limitation, and the required context well enough 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?

The input schema documents clinicId with a pattern and description at 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies exactly what is returned: display names for bookable providers within a single clinic. It also explicitly scopes to 'one tenant-owned DodoDentist clinic', which differentiates it from broader sibling tools like list_clinics.

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 description clearly implies usage when you need providers for a specific clinic, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention alternatives like list_clinics for finding clinic IDs. Usage context is present but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra facts not present in annotations: pagination is bounded and cursor-based, and clinical metadata is excluded from results. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main action and pagination behavior are front-loaded, and the metadata-scope qualifier earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 read-only list with no required parameters and an output schema, this description covers authentication scope, pagination style, and the return-data boundary. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The schema documents `cursor` but not `limit`, leaving schema description coverage at 50%. The phrase 'bounded, cursor-based pagination' hints at how the parameters work, but it does not explicitly state that `limit` caps page size or what the default behavior is.

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 opens with the exact action ('List') and resource ('authenticated user's DodoDentist clinics'), and the second sentence narrows the payload to 'non-clinical clinic metadata.' This clearly separates it from detail/clinical siblings like get_clinic_availability even without naming them.

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?

It conveys useful context: the tool returns only the authenticated user's clinics and only non-clinical metadata, which implies when it is relevant. However, it never states a when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule or points to alternatives such as get_clinic or list_clinic_providers.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: pagination is bounded, and the response deliberately excludes patient treatment data and record identifiers. This helps an agent understand what to expect and what not to rely on.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusion note is valuable without bloating the description.

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?

Given the rich annotations, a provided output schema, and straightforward optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, pagination behavior, and response content restrictions. It could be even stronger by explicitly noting that clinicId is an optional filter, but the schema already supplies that detail.

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?

The input schema already describes cursor and clinicId, leaving limit as the main undocumented parameter. The description adds 'bounded pagination,' which gives some meaning to limit and cursor, and 'authenticated user's' adds context for the overall scope. However, it does not meaningfully elaborate on clinicId filtering or pagination mechanics beyond the 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 exact resource ('the authenticated user's DodoDentist procedure catalog') and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on clinics, availability, and calendar events. It also specifies the scope of returned data, making the tool's purpose 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: listing the authenticated user's procedure catalog with bounded pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity makes confusion with siblings unlikely.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the bounded scope of returned data (aggregate counts, metadata, previews) and explicitly stating it never returns individual clinical data, which is not captured in annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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: the first states the purpose and scope, the second enumerates contents and exclusions. Every phrase earns its place, and the primary intent is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 structure is already documented. The description explains what data is included and excluded, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool. It lacks explicit error-handling or prerequisite conditions (e.g., what happens if clinicId is invalid), but given the simplicity and existing schema, this is a minor gap.

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%: clinicId is fully documented with type and pattern. The description adds the qualifier 'known', implying the clinic must exist, but this is minor and does not provide new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb 'render' and a resource 'bounded administrative overview' for a known DodoDentist clinic, then enumerates the exact data components included and explicitly excludes clinical data. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_clinic (full clinic details) and get_clinic_schedule_summary (schedule only), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description implies a dashboard/summary use case by combining multiple aggregate data types, and the exclusion clause hints it is not for detailed record access. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide conditional guidance (e.g., 'use get_clinic for full details'), leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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