Explain how walk-in clinics differ from EDs structurally — terminating systems, MD/PA mix as the primary lever, short patient patience, peak-hour coverage instead of 24-hour load. Use when the user describes a walk-in clinic, urgent care, or retail health setting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the specific content scope (terminating systems, MD/PA mix, patient patience, peak-hour coverage), giving useful context about what the explanation will cover, but does not go beyond that. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only a concise usage trigger. There is no redundant filler.
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 tool is a simple explainer with no parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the topic scope and usage condition sufficiently. It doesn't need to explain return values or parameter details because there are none. The description is complete for its simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema is empty, so description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and identifies the exact resource ('how walk-in clinics differ from EDs structurally'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like explain_ed_queueing and explain_appointment_office. It also previews the specific focus areas, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user describes a walk-in clinic, urgent care, or retail health setting.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the trigger condition is clear and contextually differentiates it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing/describing facility types, explaining specific care settings, running a simulation, or recommending MD counts. The three explain tools are differentiated by their target setting (ED, walk-in, appointment office), and the describe/list pair is distinct from the explain tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: list, describe, explain, simulate, recommend. The objects are specific and clearly named (facility_types, ed_queueing, walk_in_clinic, md_count, ed_demo). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a healthcare simulation and teaching server. Each tool has a unique role, with no redundancy. The count is within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's focused purpose.
The tool surface is complete for its stated demo scope: users can discover facility types, get conceptual explanations, run simulations, and receive staffing recommendations. The only absent feature (mixed-provider staffing) is explicitly flagged as part of the paid product, so there is no unmet expectation within the free tool's domain.
