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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the 100-item limit and the categories of data excluded. This gives the agent practical expectations about result scope beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated compactly. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 listing tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description covers the key operational details: cap of 100, bookable providers, and excluded fields. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but given the simple scope and output schema, this is not a major gap.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, clinicId, including format and pattern. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond confirming the clinic context. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it.

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 and resource: 'List at most 100 display names for bookable providers.' It clearly scopes the operation to one tenant-owned clinic and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_clinics by focusing on providers. The exclusion of staff identifiers, contact details, roles, and clinical data further sharpens the purpose.

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 when the tool should be used: when display names of bookable providers are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, although the exclusions hint that other tools would be needed for roles, contact details, or clinical data. This is clear context but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools.

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