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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds a genuinely useful epistemic contract – unknown is returned explicitly and missing data is never treated as 'no' – which materially changes how an agent should interpret a negative answer.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant caveat. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name/title.

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 formatting need not be described, and the negative-answer semantics are covered. The gap is the total absence of topic/enum semantics and slug-scope explanation for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. 'Selected practices' hints at practice_slugs and 'bounded' gestures at the topic enum, but neither parameter, its cardinality (max 10 slugs), nor the meaning of the eleven topic values is explained.

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 gives a specific verb (answer) and a specific resource (bounded factual questions over selected practices' evidence), which an agent can distinguish from the booking/list siblings. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself against the nearest read sibling get_canadian_dental_practice.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_canadian_dental_practice and search_canadian_dentists are plausible competitors for entity lookups. The agent must infer the boundary between 'ask a question' and 'fetch a practice record'.

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