Returns the clinic's warranty terms, tiered by treatment material (implants, crowns, veneers, composite bonding), including exclusions and remote-claim process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context about response content (tiering, exclusions, remote-claim process) that goes beyond annotations. No contradiction; credit for adding behavioral context.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by key details. Every clause adds value—no fluff or repetition. Ideal length for a zero-parameter tool.
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 read-only tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the tiering logic, and additional included information (exclusions, remote-claim). No gaps for the agent to resolve.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter semantics, but that is not required.
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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource (clinic's warranty terms), with detailed specifics (tiered by material, exclusions, remote-claim process) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_aftercare_information. No ambiguity.
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 use when warranty terms are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Context from sibling tool names helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance or alternative mentions.
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.
Each get_* tool targets a distinct information domain (clinic profile, doctor profile, prices, reviews, etc.), but the generic 'fetch' overlaps with the specific getters, creating minor ambiguity.
Most tools follow a get_* pattern, but 'fetch' breaks the convention, and 'search' and 'request_callback' deviate from the get_ prefix, resulting in an inconsistent style.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a patient services server, covering information retrieval and contact actions without bloat.
The server covers the core patient journey: researching treatments, clinic info, prices, reviews, visit logistics, and initiating contact via callback or WhatsApp. A potential gap is direct appointment booking, but the contact mechanisms compensate.
