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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns published professional memberships and supports name-spelling aliases, going beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns a clinician profile') and enumerates key fields and matching criteria without wasted words.

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?

The tool has one well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation, an output schema, and a description that covers output fields and matching behavior. Sibling tools provide context for alternatives, making the description complete for a simple profile lookup.

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 input schema fully documents the 'doctor' parameter with examples (entity_id, name, alias, page slug). The description reiterates this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns a clinician profile with specific fields (title, specialty, languages, education, memberships). It distinguishes from siblings like get_clinic_profile by focusing on the doctor, and the matching by entity_id, name, or alias confirms the resource.

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 implies clear usage: when needing a clinician profile, provide an identifier. It mentions accepted input formats, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_clinic_profile or search. The context is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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