Find real, verified doctors in Kenya available for a video consultation, optionally by specialty. Returns names, specialties and fees (no contact details).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| specialty | No | e.g. gynaecologist, paediatrician, dermatologist, dentist, general |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that doctors are verified, the return includes names/specialties/fees, and notably that no contact details are returned. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every word serves a purpose.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and a key limitation (no contact details). Could mention pagination or ordering but is largely sufficient.
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% with the 'specialty' parameter described as 'e.g. gynaecologist...'. The description adds the term 'optional' but does not significantly expand on the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 finds real, verified doctors in Kenya for video consultation, optionally by specialty. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_groceries' by specifying doctors and video consultation.
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 implies usage for finding doctors in Kenya for video consultation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: general info, doctor search, grocery search, medicine search, and onboarding. Their descriptions clearly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (about_mkliniki, find_doctor, find_groceries, find_medicine, join_mkliniki). No deviations.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing health and grocery services in Kenya. Each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary redundancy.
The toolset covers core functionalities: information, finding doctors, groceries, OTC medicine, and onboarding. Minor gaps like missing appointment booking or account management exist but are reasonable given the focused scope.