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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds pagination behavior ('20 per page by default'), which is genuine added context, but its enumeration of returned fields largely duplicates what the existing output schema provides.

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?

Three sentences with the trigger front-loaded and the negative scoping last where it is most useful. The middle sentence restating return fields is partly redundant with the output schema, which is the only waste.

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?

A read-only, two-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations needs little more, and the description covers trigger, scope, exclusions and page size. Nothing essential is missing, though there is no explicit guidance on chaining the returned identifiers into the administrative reads it mentions.

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 100%: limit (1-100, default 20) and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description's '20 per page by default' mirrors the limit schema text without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list veterinary clinics accessible to the connected Veterical account') and adds the downstream purpose (retrieving identifiers for subsequent administrative reads). The closing 'Not for finding a pet, owner or appointment' separates it from the rest of the sibling set at a glance.

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 list veterinary clinics...') and rules out off-target intents (pet, owner, appointment). It never names the natural sibling alternative, e.g. get_clinic for a single clinic, so an agent must infer that boundary itself.

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