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.