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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Unknown is returned explicitly; missing data is never inferred as no.' This clarifies handling of missing data, which is not in annotations, so it adds real value.

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 with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat follows. No redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists and the input schema defines the topic enum, the description is fairly complete. It explains the unknown-handling behavior but does not elaborate on practice_slugs or topic categories, though those are largely covered by the schema. Minor gap on usage guidance, but not critical for a read-only QA tool.

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 0% – the description does not mention the two parameters at all. The topic parameter has an enum but no descriptions, and practice_slugs is self-explanatory, yet the description provides no guidance on how to populate them. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but only weakly implies a bounded question set.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Answer a bounded factual question from the selected practices' evidence.' It differentiates from siblings like search_canadian_dentists and get_canadian_dental_practice by focusing on evidence-based QA. Not a tautology and not vague.

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 to use it (answering factual questions about selected practices) but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Among many booking/action siblings, this tool is clearly distinct, but the description does not name them or state when not to use it.

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