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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them: a hard cap of 100 clinics returned, and an explicit inventory of what is NOT included (no pet, owner, appointment, or clinical data), which prevents an agent over-trusting the payload.

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, both earning their place: the trigger and scope come first, then the return cap and exclusions. No padding 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still clarifies the 100-clinic cap and the deliberate absence of clinical data. The one residue is how this opening tool differs operationally from list_clinics/show_clinic_overview for the same data.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly implies no filtering input is required and that the app opens with a default set of clinics.

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 a specific verb and resource: opens Veterical and surfaces clinics with schedule counts, availability, and catalog prices in a sidebar. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings that also return clinic data (list_clinics, show_clinic_overview), leaving some overlap ambiguity.

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 a clear use trigger (someone wants to open Veterical and browse) plus explicit exclusions ('Not for booking appointments, editing records or medical decisions'). It does not name the sibling tools an agent should prefer for those excluded tasks, but the when/when-not framing is strong.

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