Returns practical trip-planning facts: clinic location, opening hours, airport distance, transfers, accommodation, expected stay length, and package inclusions.
| 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 mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about the scope of returned data (practical travel facts). It does not disclose any unusual behavioral traits, but none are expected for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool.
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, front-loaded with the main action ('Returns'), and provides a comprehensive but concise list of contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope and return content. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating how the clinic is identified, but this is likely implied by shared context across sibling tools.
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 schema coverage is complete. The description adds no parameter information because there are no parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 defines the resource as 'practical trip-planning facts,' then enumerates concrete items (clinic location, opening hours, airport distance, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clinic_profile or get_prices.
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 for trip planning by listing relevant facts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the content clearly differentiates from siblings like get_prices or get_aftercare_information. The context is clear and there are no exclusions.
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.
