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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing sort order (alphabetical), default page size (50 per page), and return fields. It stops short of describing rate limits or cursor expiry, but it is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 with zero filler: the trigger leads, the return shape follows, and the exclusion closes. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still sketches them. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so all three parameters (limit, cursor, clinicId) are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the 50-per-page default. The phrase 'their dental practice' loosely implies clinicId filtering but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific use case ('what their dental practice charges for a treatment') and the resource returned (catalog treatment names with price and last edit time). It cleanly distinguishes from the sibling tools, none of which concern treatment pricing, so an agent can select it without inspecting others.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks what their dental practice charges') and explicit exclusions ('Not for a patient's treatment history or tooth chart'), which helps routing. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use for those excluded cases, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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