Renaissance Dental Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable operational context: the lookup is scoped to the practice served by 'this connection', and a location mismatch produces no results. It does not explain what a successful result contains or whether the connection always has exactly one practice.

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 no filler. The scope is front-loaded, followed by the negative boundary ('not a search of all dentists') and the edge-case behavior ('location mismatch returns no results'). Each sentence earns its place.

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 two optional enum parameters, annotations that fully cover safety, and no output schema, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly in most cases. It states scope, an exclusion, and the empty-result condition. It could be strengthened by clarifying what is returned (a single practice vs. multiple) and the meaning of optional/'any' parameters, but no critical gap exists.

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%, but both parameters are enums with explicit allowed values. The description adds semantic framing ('borough', 'publicly listed service') but does not explain that both parameters are optional, what the 'any' value does, or how the enumerations map to the lookup logic. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the agent to infer the meaning of 'any' and the effect of omitting parameters.

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 ('Find'), resource ('the practice served by this connection'), and two filtering dimensions ('borough and publicly listed service'). It explicitly distinguishes the tool from a general dentist search, though it does not name any of the sibling tools.

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 states the context of use ('office directory lookup') and an exclusion ('not a search of all dentists'), which helps an agent understand when not to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for broader searches, leaving the agent to infer the fallback.

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, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add what the annotations cannot. It does so by enumerating the four actions the tool will not perform, which is the key routing risk for a scheduling-adjacent endpoint.

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, zero waste, with the positive purpose stated first and the scope exclusions immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (link and phone) and what it is not. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether the result is static or derived, but that is unlikely to affect invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is a single parameter whose enum lists exactly one value, so the schema is effectively self-documenting. The description says 'selected office', which gestures at practice_id without explicitly tying the term 'office' to the 'practice_id' field name, leaving a small naming mismatch.

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: returns the public scheduling link and phone for a selected office. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_office_hours and get_practice_details, though it never names them 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 second sentence draws an explicit boundary: it does not read availability, hold a slot, submit a request, or confirm an appointment, which steers an agent away from treating it as a booking tool. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that would handle those other tasks.

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/closed-world, so the safety bar is low, and the description instead adds the more valuable disclosure: that a listed carrier does not confirm plan, network, coverage, cost or benefits. That caveat prevents the agent from over-reading results; what is missing is any hint about the shape or pagination of the returned record.

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 what is returned, followed by the limitations and the input restriction. No filler, though the opening phrase 'insurance policy and listed carriers' is slightly compressed and takes a moment to parse.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of framing what comes back and, more importantly, what the data does not guarantee. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call the tool safely; only the exact record structure is unspecified.

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% on the single practice_id parameter, so the schema does not explain it, and the description only implies it via 'the selected office'. The enum limits values to a single practice, which lowers the practical risk, but the description adds little semantic meaning beyond the field name.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: retrieves the office's insurance policy and accepted carrier list. The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (hours, appointment links, practice details), so an agent can route on it, 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?

Establishes a clear usage boundary: this is the tool for carrier/policy lookup, not for plan verification, network checks, cost or benefit questions, and it will not accept member IDs. It does not name an alternative tool to use for those excluded needs, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context by disclosing that results are "published weekly" data that may contain "source conflicts" and are not real-time. The holiday/exception caveat tells the agent the data can be stale, which is not encoded anywhere in annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core return content stated first and the caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (weekly hours plus source conflicts) and warns about staleness. Return shape and how conflicts are represented are left unspecified, but that is a minor gap without an output schema.

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 schema itself explains nothing about practice_id. The single-value enum ("renaissance-dental") makes the parameter nearly self-evident, but the description adds no meaning about what practice_id selects or what happens if the practice lacks published hours.

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 ("Get published weekly office hours") plus a second return element ("any source conflicts"). It distinguishes itself from appointment-related siblings by explicitly saying these are not live appointment slots, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from.

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 a clear when-not (not live appointment slots) and a redirect (confirm holidays and exceptions with the office), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. get_appointment_link) as the correct path for live availability.

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, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what data is included (location, contact, listed services, sourced doctor backgrounds) and what the tool explicitly does not determine (clinical suitability, 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieval action and followed by a concise limitation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only single-entity detail tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what fields are returned and what the tool does not establish. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the accepted practice identifier or pointing to related sibling tools for broader discovery.

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 would ideally explain practice_id. It adds only that the lookup is 'for one practice', while the schema's enum and required constraint carry the concrete allowed value. The description provides marginal semantic help but does not compensate fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Get') and enumerates the resource contents (location, contact, services, doctor backgrounds) for a single practice. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool find_practices by scoping to 'one practice', though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 exclusion 'Does not establish clinical suitability or current licensure' gives a meaningful limitation on how to interpret or rely on the result, but it does not explain when to call this versus sibling tools like find_practices or get_office_hours. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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