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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that only published doctors are returned and that query/slug are optional filters. It still omits auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, and return format, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 purpose and followed by parameter guidance. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read/list tool with no output schema, the description states the core action and filtering options. It is nearly complete, though pagination or result-limit behavior is not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including slug format and query examples. The description adds only that both are optional, which is already implied by zero required parameters, so 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 gives a specific verb set (list/search) and resource (published implant doctors), plus a scope qualifier (published). It is clearly different from get_blog, get_contact, get_faq, get_location, and get_practice, though it does not distinguish itself from the generic search sibling.

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 implies usage by noting that query and slug are optional filters, so the agent can infer list-all versus search versus slug lookup. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the sibling search tool or any other alternative.

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