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.