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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the live-article filter and the exact returned fields, which adds meaningful context beyond a generic 'list procedures'. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or explicit read-only status, but for a no-parameter list tool the behavior is clear and non-destructive.

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 sentence that leads with the core concept ('Published procedure catalog') followed by the specific return fields and filtering condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the scope (published, live articles), the exact fields returned, and the coverage ('every procedure'). It provides all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 has zero parameters, so the description rightly focuses on output semantics. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No parameter explanations are needed, and the schema (empty) confirms no inputs.

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 clearly states the tool returns a published procedure catalog with specific fields (slug, display_name, also_known_as, specialty_slug) for every procedure with a live article. This is a specific verb+resource combination that is distinct from siblings like get_procedure (single procedure) and list_specialties (specialties).

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 listing all procedures but doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like get_procedure or search_clinics. It provides context (published catalog, live articles) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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