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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'safe' aligns. It adds the key behavioral trait 'Cross-organization ids fail closed as not found,' which is not in annotations and clarifies error handling for invalid or out-of-scope ids.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise edge-case note. No filler or 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose and a critical edge case. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; missing return-format details are already provided by the output schema.

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% and the schema already documents clinicId with format and pattern. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, though the cross-org note indirectly clarifies invalid id behavior. This meets the baseline for high 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get safe administrative metadata for one clinic in the authenticated Veterical organization.' It distinguishes from plural siblings like list_clinics and from overview or schedule tools by specifying 'administrative metadata' and 'one clinic.'

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (retrieving administrative metadata for a single clinic) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The purpose itself implies usage boundaries, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_clinic_availability or show_clinic_overview.

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