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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: free to run, no account required, and source uncertainty causes the tool to refuse an answer, signaling a failure/abstention mode.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then the key behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say what a successful run returns, but it does not. It also omits where to find tool_id and how the nested inputs object should be shaped, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains that inputs come from get_practitioner_tool, which helps for one parameter, but tool_id's format/source is undocumented and the nested inputs object structure is left entirely unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (practitioner tool), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_practitioner_tool by naming it as the source of inputs. The phrase 'practitioner tool' is domain-specific but clear in context; no misleading ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite: inputs come from get_practitioner_tool, and notes no account is required. It provides clear context for use but does not state when-not to use it or name alternatives like list_practitioner_tools.

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