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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the returned field list, which is also captured by the available output schema, and omits auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior, so it adds little beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Three short sentences: a when-to-use clause, a result summary, and an exclusion. Every sentence is front-loaded and 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 simple one-record lookup with complete schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the trigger, output scope, and sibling exclusion needed to call it correctly. It only misses explicit differentiation from show_clinic_overview among the siblings.

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 single clinicId parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the 24-character hex pattern. The description adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource ('one dental practice's setup') and enumerates the data returned (currency, language, timezone), so the agent knows exactly what the call retrieves. It also distinguishes this tool from the availability sibling by excluding 'free appointment times'.

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 gives a clear trigger ('Use this when someone asks about...') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for free appointment times'), which routes availability questions elsewhere. It does not name the alternative tool, so the guidance stops short of full routing.

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