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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses matching behavior (all words preferred, partial fallback), ranked results, public page URL, can_book availability, and the restriction to claimed profiles. This gives the agent meaningful operational context not covered by the structured 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?

The description is four compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add usage mechanics and result semantics. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 8 optional parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the important behavioral edges: matching rules, claimed-profile restriction, ranked results, and booking eligibility. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema already documents all 8 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining free-text usage, location-word matching, and the all-vs-partial matching strategy, but it does not individually clarify filters like country, specialty, or language 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 states a specific verb and resource: find claimed physicians, dentists, attorneys, or accountants on Siporpro. It also distinguishes the scope by noting that only real, claimed profiles are listed and that results include can_book for request_booking compatibility.

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 clearly explains using free text and/or filters, including examples like "cardiologist Panama City" and "abogado de migración". It also indicates when request_booking is applicable via can_book, but does not explicitly name get_professional or get_availability as alternatives for profile details or scheduling.

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