EKO-IKSI Fertility Clinic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds that there are three clinics and that licence information is included, but says nothing about output format or whether all clinics are always returned — adequate but not rich against a lowered bar.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the content inventory is front-loaded before the usage note. Slightly more efficient framing is possible but nothing wastes space.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently tells an agent what data comes back. The only minor gap is silence on return shape and whether output varies by language.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'language' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the language option, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (contacts, addresses, opening hours, licence, and the three EKO-IKSI clinics) with concrete scope, and the entity is clearly distinct from siblings like get_doctor, read_article, or search_prices. An agent can identify what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the context of use: 'Use this to tell someone how to reach or visit the clinic.' That is clear usage guidance, though it offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., it never says to prefer search_prices for fees or list_doctors for staff).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: lookup accepts either a canonical id or a partial name. It does not disclose what happens on ambiguous or no-match names, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by how to invoke it. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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, and the description compensates by listing the profile fields returned. Combined with full annotation and schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior for partial-name matches and language handling is left implicit.

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 both parameters, including the enum for language. The description's note about id-or-partial-name input largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One EKO-IKSI doctor's full profile') and enumerates the returned fields (position, specialties, experience, biography), which sharply distinguishes a single-record detail fetch from the sibling list_doctors. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: 'Pass the id from list_doctors, or part of the doctor's name,' which routes the agent to list_doctors for the identifier. It stops short of when-not guidance (e.g., behavior on ambiguous or missing names) or explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful field-level context about the response shape, but says nothing about ordering, total count, or truncation limits for a full-roster listing, which is the main open behavior.

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 returned payload first, the routing hint second. No filler, front-loaded with the most useful information.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and when to prefer the sibling. The only minor omission is any indication of result size or ordering.

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% and the single language enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the language parameter (e.g. default behavior or fallback) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('All doctors of EKO-IKSI clinic') and enumerates exactly what comes back: name, position, specialties, experience and a profile link. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_doctor for single-doctor 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?

Names the alternative (get_doctor) and the condition that selects it ('for one doctor's full biography'), giving the agent a direct routing rule between the two sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the full text is returned and that any eko-iksi.uz address works, but says nothing about failures, partial content, or language fallback behavior.

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, no redundancy, with the returned-content statement leading and the input guidance following. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, stating that the full text is returned is sufficient to set expectations. Minor gaps remain around error cases and language behavior, but 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the language enum and its default. The description only restates the URL/slug input, adding marginal value for the 'any eko-iksi.uz article address' case.

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?

Names the specific resource (one EKO-IKSI article or news item) and what it yields (the full text), which an agent can distinguish from search_articles. The verb is implicit ('read') rather than stated, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly links to search_articles as the source of the URL, establishing the use context (fetch a specific article after finding it). No explicit when-not conditions or exclusion of other retrieval paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (titles, dates, summaries, links) and the full-text handoff, though it says nothing about pagination or result 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and domain, the second defines the return shape and the delegation path. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 compensates by listing what results contain, and all parameters are schema-documented. It is nearly complete for a search tool; only pagination/ordering behavior and guidance on combining filters remain unstated.

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% and all four parameters (type, limit, query, language) are documented in-schema with defaults, ranges, and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a clearly scoped resource (articles and news published by EKO-IKSI clinic), and enumerates the topical domains covered. It also explicitly separates itself from the read_article sibling, so an agent can route without inspecting either schema.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: use read_article for the full text, implying this tool is for discovery. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions against the other siblings (search_prices, clinic_information), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuinely useful context — the currency (so'm), the trilingual search, and the empty-query behavior — but says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics, or failure modes.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope and domain come first and the operational note (languages) follows. Nothing restates the tool name.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers domain, language, currency and the empty-query case. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether matching is substring or fuzzy.

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 all four parameters, including both enums, are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-adjacent contribution is the general note about the three languages and currency, which is a 3 baseline rather than added meaning.

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 verb and resource ("Search the price lists") and scopes it to EKO-IKSI plus its two partner clinics, listing the service categories covered. That is far more specific than any sibling tool, and an agent can tell immediately it is not search_articles or list_doctors.

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?

It implies usage through "Leave empty to list services" and notes that queries work in three languages, but it never states when to prefer this tool over clinic_information or list_doctors, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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