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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the returned fields, the default page size of 20, and that results are paginated — context the annotations do not carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by return contents and the exclusion. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description is nearly complete: it names the returned fields (redundant with the output schema but harmless), the pagination default, and the exclusions. Only the paging mechanism (using cursor from the previous response) is left to the schema.

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%, so both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes the 20-per-page default but adds no detail about cursor semantics or page-size limits beyond what the schema already states.

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 your dental practices') and scopes it to practices the user runs in DodoDentist, with a secondary use case (retrieving a practice id). It also explicitly excludes adjacent resources (patients, appointments), so an agent can separate it from the get_clinic family.

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 a clear triggering condition ('when someone asks which dental practices they run, or a practice's id is needed') and an explicit when-not ('not for looking up a patient or appointment'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for a single practice (get_clinic), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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