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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: a 100-result cap, single-practice scope, and the fact that contact details and roles are omitted from 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: trigger first, then the return shape and limit, then the exclusion. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (display names, up to 100). For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the clinicId format is fully documented in the schema, including its 24-character hex pattern. The description's 'for one practice' only hints at the single-practice scoping the parameter implies, adding little 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list staff who take bookings at a practice) and enumerates the roles covered (dentists, dental nurses, assistants). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent schedule tools by ruling out holidays/days off, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use this when someone asks which dentists... patients can book') plus an explicit exclusion ('not for staff holidays or days off'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool that should handle holidays, so routing is implied rather than fully resolved.

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