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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by scoping exactly what content is returned, but says nothing about behavior when clinic_id is omitted (site context) or when an id is invalid/unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence ('One clinic's facts:') followed by a compact enumeration. Every listed item signals retrievable data, though the long run-on list could be grouped more scannably.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description's content inventory is a helpful supplement. The remaining gap is selection guidance relative to find_clinics and the fact that clinic_id is optional, which an agent must infer from the schema.

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 both parameters (locale enum with default, clinic_id with the find_clinics warning) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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 a specific resource (one clinic) and enumerates the concrete facts it returns — address, phones, opening hours, parking, team, prices, offers, payment methods. That is clearly distinguishable from list/search siblings such as find_clinics or list_offers. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at 4.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call find_clinics first to obtain the id, or that this is the detail lookup after a search. The one useful routing hint ('The clinic_id find_clinics returns... A clinic site needs none') lives only in the schema, not the description.

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