directory

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description adds that profiles are limited to verified therapists and that registration numbers are publicly displayed, which is useful scoping. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid/unknown slug) or that results are a single object rather than a list.

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 identifies the resource first and appends the slug definition and return contents. Every clause carries information, though the registration-number clause is slightly dense.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the parameter's origin, and the shape of the return (bio, credentials, registration numbers). Only error/empty-result behavior is left unspecified.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by defining the slug as the last path segment of a profile_url, beyond the schema's terse example. This tells the agent how to obtain and format the value.

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 ('Full public profile of one verified therapist') and scopes it to a lookup by profile slug, which clearly separates it from the sibling search_therapists and list_filter_options. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 implied rather than stated: the parenthetical 'the last path segment of a profile_url' tells the agent where the slug comes from, which weakly signals when this tool applies. There is no explicit when/when-not or comparison against search_therapists if the caller lacks a slug.

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.