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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating what is returned (input choices, scope, citations), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits error behavior for an unknown tool_id and does not say the data is read live.

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?

One compact sentence with the payload front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly dense, packing three distinct return categories into a single phrase, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the return contents adequately, but it leaves the agent without guidance on how to obtain a valid tool_id or what happens on an invalid one.

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 0% and the single parameter 'tool_id' is a bare string with no format, source, or example. The description's 'for a free practitioner tool' only obliquely implies the parameter identifies a tool, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the payload: current input choices, supported scope, and official citations for a practitioner tool. It is distinguishable from list_practitioner_tools and run_practitioner_tool by describing a metadata lookup rather than enumeration or execution, though it never names those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. that the tool_id comes from list_practitioner_tools), and no indication of when to prefer this over run_practitioner_tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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