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.