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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the result is bounded, cursor-paginated, and never includes clinical records, which is behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe what happens on empty results or if there are rate limits, but with annotations present, this is a solid contribution.

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?

One clear sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and result type. The exclusion of clinical records is stated immediately, preventing misuse. Zero redundancy and efficient use of space.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no required params, simple pagination) and the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description is complete. It covers the primary intent, the pagination style, and critical exclusions. An agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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 50%: the cursor parameter is described as 'Opaque cursor from a prior result' in the schema, which is already sufficient. The limit parameter has no description in the schema, but its meaning is obvious from its name and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable since the schema does most of the work, but there is no extra clarification for limit's effect on pagination.

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?

States specific verb ('List') and resource ('clinics') and explicitly scopes to administrative metadata, distinguishing from the many sibling tools by clarifying it returns metadata only, not clinical records. The phrase 'bounded, cursor-paginated' further adds precision about the result set. Clear differentiation from get_clinic (single clinic) and list_calendar_events (events not clinics).

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?

Provides clear context: it's for listing administrative metadata for clinics in the authenticated organization, and explicitly excludes animal, owner, appointment, and clinical records, which helps an agent decide not to use it for clinical data. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives for those excluded data types, though the exclusion itself gives useful guidance when to avoid.

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