license.medical

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains what data is returned (name, credentials, specialties, etc.) and implies it's a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, rate limits, or pagination behavior (skip/limit) beyond what's in 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: first states the registry and purpose, second details input and output. No redundant words, all information is front-loaded and necessary.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use cases and return types. It omits details on pagination and enumeration types, but those are in the schema. Overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capability.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping firstName+lastName+state as an alternative to NPI. Although schema covers 50% of parameters, the description clarifies the primary usage patterns, which aids correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as a US healthcare provider lookup via NPPES NPI Registry, specifies input methods (NPI or name+state), and lists output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health.provider-profile or health.hospital-lookup.

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 explicitly states the two lookup modes: by 10-digit NPI for precise match or by firstName+lastName+state. This provides clear guidance on when to use each. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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