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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description only adds that the data is "public" practice information, with no mention of auth requirements, caching, or freshness. Adds modest value on top of rich 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the use case. No filler or restated title text.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields. Combined with annotations covering safety and a parameterless schema, the only real gap is the unresolved boundary with get_practice_info.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the field list in the description accurately mirrors what the caller gets rather than misrepresenting inputs.

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 resource (Goldsberry Orthodontics business overview) and enumerates exactly what it returns: doctor, phone, email, hours, website, booking links. It is a clear read of a single resource, though it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_practice_info.

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?

"Use for general questions about the practice" gives a context, but it is generic and does not exclude or route against get_practice_info, get_consultation_info, or get_locations, which cover adjacent territory. An agent facing a general practice question has no stated rule for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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