Doktor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior and return format (list with specialties, location, ratings, contact info, profile links), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling. It adequately describes the core operation but lacks details about operational constraints.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, parameters, and return value without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and provides complete information in minimal 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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the search scope, parameters, and result format adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like rate limits or error scenarios.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the same parameters (specialty, city, state, name) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Search for doctors'), resource ('doctors in Mexico'), and scope ('by medical specialty, city, state, or name'), distinguishing it from siblings like buscar_articulo_salud (search health articles) or verificar_cedula (verify credentials). It specifies the exact platform (doktor.mx) and what information is returned.

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 description implies usage for doctor searches in Mexico, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like buscar_por_padecimiento (search by condition) or buscar_por_seguro (search by insurance). It mentions filtering criteria but doesn't provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other search methods.

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