directory

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds real context beyond the annotation: only verified therapists' public data is returned, and registration numbers are those displayed publicly and checkable against the NMC/RCI registers. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown or unverified slug, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned before the keying detail, with no filler. It is dense with clauses (bio, credentials, registration registers) but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description carries the right burden by enumerating the fields returned (bio, credentials, registration numbers). Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid or unverified slugs.

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 100% and already gives an example slug, so the baseline is met; the description adds genuine meaning by defining the slug as the last path segment of a profile_url, which tells the agent where to source the value. The parameter is singular and unambiguous, so no more is needed.

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: retrieves the full public profile of a single verified therapist, keyed by profile slug. The inclusion list (bio, credentials, registration numbers) and the 'one ... by slug' framing make it clearly distinct from the sibling search_therapists and list_filter_options tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical explaining that the slug is the last path segment of a profile_url tells the agent what input to supply, and 'one ... by profile slug' hints it is for direct lookup rather than discovery. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have a slug, otherwise use search_therapists' routing statement or any exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful content-level context by enumerating what the filter values cover, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, caching, or whether the values are static or fluctuate — modest added value beyond the annotation.

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 tight clauses with zero filler: the content of the response is front-loaded and the purpose clause follows. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete — it tells the agent what categories come back and why to call it. It stops short of five only because the return structure (flat lists vs grouped) is left implicit.

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. The description correctly implies a parameterless, enumeration-style call with no filtering inputs, matching the empty schema.

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+resource (listing the directory's available filter values) and enumerates exactly what the three categories are: concerns/specialisations, practice languages, and cities with in-person therapists. It is clearly distinguishable from get_therapist and search_therapists, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Useful for grounding a search" implies the when-to-use context (call this before searching), but it never names search_therapists as the alternative or states when-not to use it. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the credential verification pipeline (NMC/RCI register checks, degree verification) and the lenient matching behavior. It adds real context beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss result caps or pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 tight sentences that lead with what the directory is and its verification guarantee, then cover filter optionality and matching semantics. No filler, nothing duplicated.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what results are, and it does so via the verification guarantee, which is the key trust signal for this directory. It stops short of describing result shape, count defaults, or ordering, which an agent might want for a 7-parameter search.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including enums and the limit default. The description's examples ('Mumbai', 'anxiety') largely restate the schema examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) plus resource (India's credential-verified mental-health therapist directory) and scope (verification-before-listing). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools get_therapist (single lookup) and list_filter_options (metadata).

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?

'All filters optional' and 'names are matched leniently' give useful directional context about how to call it, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_therapist, nor when a search is unnecessary. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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