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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents ('credentials, inline reviews, procedures performed, contact action, canonical URL'), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It is a mild positive but not a full disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a concise list of contents. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple fetch tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could explicitly mention error behavior or fallbacks, but given the tool's simplicity, the current description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, with each parameter described and the slug explanation calling out that slugs are unique per city. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single clinic's full record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_clinics (which searches) and get_procedure (which fetches a procedure). It also enumerates the record's contents (credentials, reviews, procedures, contact action, canonical URL), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is for fetching a single clinic when you know its slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_clinics, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The schema provides helpful disambiguation guidance (pairing slug with city and state), but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.

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