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 bar is lower. The description still adds real value by flagging that doctor backgrounds are 'sourced' and that the result is not a fitness/licensure determination — a data-quality caveat not present in structured fields.

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: the returned fields come first, the limitation caveat second. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope and caveats well; the only minor gap is not tying practice_id to the returned record, which the lone enum value makes nearly self-evident.

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 parameter has 0% description coverage, but its enum constrains it to one value and 'for one practice' implies its meaning. With high schema coverage baseline logic inapplicable and only one constrained param, this is adequate without compensating explanation.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('one practice') with an enumerated payload: location, contact, listed services, sourced doctor backgrounds. It clearly reads as the single-practice detail fetch versus the plural find_practices, though it never names the sibling 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 sets a boundary ('does not establish clinical suitability or current licensure'), which is useful scope framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_practices, get_office_hours, or get_insurance_information. Usage is implied by the tool's scope rather than stated.

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