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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that both active and inactive records are returned and identifies the fields (names and ids), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or 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?

A single tight sentence with the scope front-loaded, plus the backing endpoint path. Nothing is redundant, though the raw 'GET /professional/list' is of marginal use to an agent.

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 usefully states the returned fields (names and ids). Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile and a fully described schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters fully, including the 0=matriz convention for unit_id and cross-references to feegow_list_units and feegow_list_specialties. The description's 'by unit or specialty' merely echoes the schema, landing at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Doctors and other professionals (names and ids)') and adds scope ('active or inactive, optionally by unit or specialty'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling feegow_get_professional for single-record lookups.

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 'optionally by unit or specialty' implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It never points to feegow_get_professional for detail, nor states a preference for list vs get.

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