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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the exact scope of the payload, the 7-day window, the 12-price cap, and the reassurance that no patient or clinical data is returned.

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 sentences, each earning its place: trigger first, returned payload second, exclusion last. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to pick it, what it returns, and what it does not cover.

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% and the single clinicId parameter (24-char hex pattern) is fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the single-practice scope via 'one dental practice' and adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('quick overview or dashboard of one dental practice') and enumerates the returned content (practice details, 7-day appointment counts, bookable staff, open slots, up to 12 prices), which meaningfully distinguishes it from the fuller get_clinic. It does not name the sibling tools directly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear trigger ('when someone wants a quick overview or dashboard') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for a single patient or appointment'). Alternatives such as get_clinic or get_clinic_schedule_summary are not named, so the agent must infer which sibling to prefer for detail-heavy requests.

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