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.