list_specialties

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'returns specialty names only' and that the scope is 'this clinic staffs.' This is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not discuss extra details like ordering or authorization.

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 contain exactly the necessary information: the action, the resource, the scope, the return content, and the absence of arguments. There is no filler or repetition, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states what is returned, the scope, and that no arguments are required. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully reflects that with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments.' Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and is fully satisfied.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the medical specialties this clinic staffs.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the siblings list_doctors and list_my_appointments by naming a distinct entity type. The scope is also explicit, so there is no ambiguity about what is listed.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the clinic's specialty names. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. For a zero-parameter, self-contained list tool, the implication is fairly clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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