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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral limits: only published details are returned, unknown age/couple format/payment methods/approach are not inferred, and no clinical suitability assessment is made. These are substantive caveats beyond the structured metadata.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the caveats. The second sentence is dense and grammatically awkward ('Unknown age, couple format, payment methods and approach are not inferred'), but every sentence contributes relevant information without filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 1-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least clarify the section enum values and give basic usage context; those gaps keep it only minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single 'section' parameter. It only says 'by section' and never clarifies what the enum values ('all', 'format', 'payment', 'cancellation', 'scope') actually return, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 names the resource ('published session details') and the filtering dimension ('by section'), but uses no explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_services_and_pricing or get_practice_overview. An agent can infer it returns consultation details, but the boundary against other content tools is left to guesswork.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The second sentence gives negative scope ('not inferred', 'no clinical suitability assessment'), which is useful boundary-setting, but it does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected instead of another.

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