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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: pagination is bounded, and the response deliberately excludes patient treatment data and record identifiers. This helps an agent understand what to expect and what not to rely on.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusion note is valuable without bloating the description.

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?

Given the rich annotations, a provided output schema, and straightforward optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, pagination behavior, and response content restrictions. It could be even stronger by explicitly noting that clinicId is an optional filter, but the schema already supplies that detail.

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 input schema already describes cursor and clinicId, leaving limit as the main undocumented parameter. The description adds 'bounded pagination,' which gives some meaning to limit and cursor, and 'authenticated user's' adds context for the overall scope. However, it does not meaningfully elaborate on clinicId filtering or pagination mechanics 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?

The description clearly identifies the exact resource ('the authenticated user's DodoDentist procedure catalog') and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on clinics, availability, and calendar events. It also specifies the scope of returned data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: listing the authenticated user's procedure catalog with bounded pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity makes confusion with siblings unlikely.

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