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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the paginated return shape ('a page plus next/previous') and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result ordering.

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, front-loaded sentences with the purpose stated first. The trailing API/endpoint note is marginally useful for transparency but is the least load-bearing sentence for an agent that only needs to invoke the tool.

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 list tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what is returned and that results are paginated. Authentication and page-size limits are left implicit, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page, page_size, and show_archived are already fully documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('List the practice's offices/locations'), scoping the result to a single resource type. No sibling tool overlaps with it, so an agent can select it unambiguously without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the unambiguous resource name, but the description never states when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Since no sibling lists offices, the lack of explicit routing guidance is a minor gap rather than a misleading one.

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