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.