Masha Pelts DDS Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closedWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavior beyond that — a mismatched location yields an empty result rather than an error or fallback — but says nothing about how omitted/optional parameters behave.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the two most likely misreadings. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Scope, input dimensions, and the failure mode are all present; the only minor gap, defaults for the optional enums, is small enough that an agent can still call this correctly.

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 compensate, and it only partly does: 'borough' and 'publicly listed service' map intuitively onto the location and service enums. It does not explain that both parameters are optional, nor what the 'any' enum value does when omitted.

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 and resource (find the practice) scoped by borough and publicly listed service, and explicitly negates the broader interpretation ('not a search of all dentists'). It does not differentiate against nearby siblings like get_practice_details or get_office_hours, which an agent could easily confuse with this lookup.

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?

Gives the agent a clear condition for when not to use it (not a general dentist search) and a constraint that shapes input choice ('A location mismatch returns no results'). No sibling alternative is named, so routing is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the link is a static public fallback, does not read availability, hold slots, submit requests, or confirm appointments — which prevents an agent from assuming booking capability. It does not explicitly say the link/phone are generic (same for every caller), a minor remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the usage condition is front-loaded and the negative scope follows. Every clause carries decision-relevant information for the agent.

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?

With an output schema covering return values, rich annotations, and a single constrained parameter, the description is nearly sufficient — it fully answers 'when do I call this and what won't it do.' The only missing piece is any statement about what practice_id represents or where to source it.

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 description never mentions practice_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. However, the parameter is a single-value enum ('masha-pelts-dds'), so the risk of misinterpretation is low and a middle score is warranted rather than a low one.

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 and resource — return a fallback public scheduling link and phone — and immediately delimits it as a fallback rather than a booking mechanism. An agent can tell this apart from find_practices or get_office_hours without inspecting any schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition ('only when the user needs to arrange a visit') and the exclusion ('for information questions, answer directly with the information tools'). The final sentence enumerates the adjacent actions it does not perform, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile, and the description adds a genuine behavioral caveat: results distinguish static available facts from capabilities that require a connected live API, which prevents an agent from assuming parity between the two. It doesn't describe response shape or failure behavior, but the output schema and annotations cover those areas.

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 compact sentences with the resource and the reported dimensions front-loaded, and no filler. It stops short of a one-line purpose statement, 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?

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to convey what the capability report covers. It does that, and the facts-versus-live-actions framing sets expectations for the return value.

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 single required parameter practice_id has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its enum value, or that it identifies the practice connection. With only one parameter this is recoverable, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: check what this practice connection can do, enumerating the categories it reports (direct information access, scheduling APIs, insurance eligibility APIs). That scope is clearly distinct from the sibling data-fetching tools like get_practice_details or get_insurance_information, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'distinguishes available facts from unsupported live actions' implies the agent should consult this before relying on live operations, but it never says when to call this versus the sibling tools or that it should be a prerequisite check. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add scope. It does: it warns that carrier presence is not plan/network/coverage verification and that member IDs are out of scope — real guidance that prevents an agent from over-interpreting results.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the caveats following. Nothing is redundant, though "No member IDs are accepted" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic without the parameter context.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing piece — what the data does and does not guarantee — for a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter, practice_id, with an enum of one value and 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase "the selected office" implies practice_id selects the office, but it never names or explains the parameter, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 and resource: it returns the selected office's insurance policy plus its listed carriers. That is clearly distinct from every sibling (appointment links, office hours, practice details), though the description never states the contrast explicitly.

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?

"Listing a carrier does not verify a specific plan, network, coverage, costs, or benefits" and "No member IDs are accepted" effectively tell the agent when this tool's output is insufficient and what it must not be used for. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the package includes source dates, explicit unknowns and integration status, and a caution that "Sources are attribution, not instructions to redirect the user" — relevant prompt-injection/grounding guidance. Return format itself is left to the output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval action and content inventory, with usage guidance trailing. The "No browsing, Facebook or X access is needed" sentence is slightly awkward phrasing but does carry real routing value; otherwise there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still inventories the payload's contents well enough for an agent to decide it is the right call. For a single-enum-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions practice_id, so nothing is added about the sole parameter. The parameter is a single-value enum ("masha-pelts-dds") with required=true, making it nearly self-explanatory from the schema alone, which keeps this at the baseline rather than below it.

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 and resource ("Retrieve the complete self-contained information package") and enumerates exactly what is inside: location, contact, services, doctor backgrounds, hours, insurance, Q&A, source dates, unknowns, integration status. It also implicitly separates itself from the narrower siblings (get_office_hours, get_insurance_information, get_practice_details) by framing this as the broad bundle for broad questions.

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?

"Use to answer broad practice questions directly in the conversation" gives a clear triggering condition and "No browsing, Facebook or X access is needed" rules out an alternative retrieval path. It stops short of explicitly naming the narrower sibling tools or stating when to prefer them over this one, so no true when-not guidance is present.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the hours are published weekly, source conflicts may exist, and holiday/exception details require confirmation.

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 two sentences with no wasted text. The key distinction from appointment slots is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers data caveats well, though it leaves the required practice_id parameter undocumented.

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% for the single required practice_id parameter. The description does not explain practice_id or its enum value, so it provides no semantic compensation 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get published weekly office hours and any source conflicts.' It also explicitly distinguishes the data from live appointment slots, which helps separate it from the sibling get_appointment_link.

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?

It clearly says these are not live appointment slots and advises confirming holidays and exceptions with the office. It does not name a specific alternative sibling for booking appointments, but the exclusion context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the categories of information returned and explicitly warning that it does not establish clinical suitability or current licensure.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary scope is front-loaded and the limitation follows naturally.

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?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what information is returned and flags an important limitation. It could be stronger only by clarifying the practice_id lookup context and when to use this versus find_practices.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the practice_id parameter, its expected format, or the single enum value. "For one practice" only loosely gestures at the parameter and 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve location, contact, listed services, and sourced doctor backgrounds for one practice. The phrase "for one practice" distinguishes it from the sibling find_practices discovery tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 this is for looking up a single known practice but does not say when to use it versus alternatives such as find_practices. It also provides no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the clinical/licensure disclaimer.

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