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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool requires a user click in the widget and then delegates to advanced_search_availability. It also clarifies date semantics ('tomorrow', 'next week'), which are essential for correct usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, and the second sentence provides essential usage constraints and workflow steps. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overall picture: it explains the output behavior (map/sidebar rendering), the interactive wait, and the follow-up tool call. It does not cover error handling or pagination, but the core workflow is sufficiently described.

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 input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds significant semantic constraints not present in the schema: the requirement to provide one of medical_service/doctor/clinic combined with city, and the interpretation of natural-language date expressions. This goes beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb: 'Discover clinics with availability and render them on map/sidebar.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the map/sidebar rendering and the interactive widget workflow, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance by specifying the required parameter combination (city plus one of medical_service/doctor/clinic) and the follow-up call to advanced_search_availability after widget interaction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, though the context implies it.

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