Closed-set enum of recognized veterinary specialty slugs. Returns slug, display_name, and credentialing_board.sameAs (when applicable). Always call this before search_clinics if uncertain about specialty mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely meets it by describing output fields and the 'when applicable' qualifier for sameAs. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns' and defines the scope as a 'closed-set enum', but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or other behavioral details.
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 sentences: the first defines the tool's essence and return structure; the second gives actionable usage context. Every phrase earns its place with no padding or redundancy.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the nature of the data ('closed-set enum'), and when to invoke it. It is self-sufficient and leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse.
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 by the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter explanation because none are 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('specialty slugs'), clearly identifying it as a reference list tool. It distinguishes itself from search_clinics by framing itself as a prerequisite mapping step, and it enumerates exact return fields (slug, display_name, credentialing_board.sameAs).
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Always call this before search_clinics if uncertain about specialty mapping.' This gives a clear when-to-use scenario, though it does not mention alternatives beyond search_clinics or explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
