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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are scoped to the calling token's practice, and the call doubles as a connection/auth sanity check. It does not state what happens with an invalid token, but the added scope/auth framing is substantive.

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: the first front-loads what the resource is and what it contains, the second gives the usage hint. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return information—and it does, by listing the returned fields. For a simple zero-arg, read-only getter with annotations covering safety, nothing essential 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?

The tool takes no parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 names the specific resource (the practice bound to the API token) and enumerates its contents: name, timezone, locations, appointment types, medical specialties. That clearly separates it from sibling getters like semble_get_user, semble_get_patient, or semble_get_invoice. It stops short of an explicit verb, relying on the title 'Get the practice' to supply it.

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?

'A good first call to check the connection' gives an explicit, actionable context for when to reach for this tool—token/connectivity validation before other calls. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, but for a zero-parameter root-object getter the guidance is sufficient.

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