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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive/open-world profile, and the description adds real operational detail: prices are returned in cents with a worked example (R$ 12.00 = 1200) and the underlying endpoint GET /procedures/list is disclosed. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or behavior when no filter is supplied, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned shape and the cents gotcha, then the selector requirement, then the optional narrowing. No restatement of the title and 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?

For an 8-parameter, no-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, the required-selector expectation, and unit/pricing context. The gap is what happens with zero filters (full scan? error?) and any paging, which matters given all parameters are optional.

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 75% and the schema already documents unit_id=0 for the main clinic, patient_id for patient pricing/insurance, and procedure_type_id cross-reference. The description mainly restates the filter set; its only genuinely additive semantic note is that prices are in cents, which concerns the response rather than an input.

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?

Names the resource (procedures, with consultations/exams as concrete examples) and the payload it returns: price, duration, online-booking flag. It explicitly routes the agent to feegow_list_procedure_types for the type vocabulary, so it is distinguishable from that sibling without opening a 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?

"Give a procedure type ... or one procedure id; optionally narrow by name, unit, specialty, professional, patient or price table" tells the agent exactly which inputs are the primary selector and which merely narrow results. It lacks any statement about when not to use it (e.g., bulk listing without filters, or versus other list tools), so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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