Fetch a single clinic's full record by slug: credentials, inline reviews, procedures performed, contact action, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City slug. | |
| slug | Yes | Clinic slug. Clinic slugs are unique per city, not globally — pair with city + state for disambiguation. | |
| state | Yes | State slug. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but estimate_procedure_cost and quote_for_case overlap significantly (quote_for_case without PII behaves identically to estimate_procedure_cost). Also, find_specialists_by_procedure duplicates the clinic-finder portion of get_procedure when state is supplied, though descriptions clarify the different focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (list, get, search, estimate, quote, find). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action and target resource.
Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a directory service. Each tool serves a distinct purpose related to browsing procedures, specialties, clinics, or generating estimates, with no obvious bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core directory workflows: listing/retrieving procedures and specialties, searching clinics, fetching clinic details, and estimating costs. Minor gaps include lack of a direct 'list clinics by specialty' tool and no way to manage or update directory entries, but these are not critical for a read-only directory.
