list_operatories

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds page-based retrieval behavior and the clinic-filter sentinel semantics, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations; it does not, however, describe pagination limits or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, the paging scope, and the filter sentinel each earn their 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 paginated read tool with full annotations and an output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is pagination semantics (what offset/limit do in practice, and default page size assumptions).

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it explains clinicnum meaningfully (0 = unassigned) but says nothing about limit or offset beyond the phrase "one page." The two pagination params are conventional, but their bounds and interaction remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("treatment rooms") plus scope ("one page"), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It stops short of naming a contrasting sibling (e.g., a find_* search tool), so differentiation relies on the resource noun alone.

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?

"Optionally filtered by clinic" implies the filter is discretionary and states the sentinel value (0 = unassigned), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the find_*/list_* siblings or what happens without the filter.

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