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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the id must belong to the caller's organization, and an out-of-organization id returns not-found rather than an error or empty result.

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 trigger condition, then the return/error behavior. The field list ('name, currency, language, timezone and edit time') is effectively repeated across both sentences, a minor redundancy that costs one point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still adds the not-found case. It is close to complete, with the only gap being no mention of other read alternatives for a clinic.

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 is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the 24-hex-character pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description only restates it as 'selected by its identifier' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('read ... one Veterical clinic') plus the exact fields returned, and scopes it to a single clinic selected by identifier, which separates it from list_clinics. It also explicitly excludes the availability sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to read ... of one clinic') and one clear exclusion ('Not for free appointment slots'). It does not name other plausible alternatives such as show_clinic_overview or list_clinics, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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