Doktor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes the verification purpose, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with partial matches, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the verification result looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second specifies the search parameters. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a verification tool that likely returns structured results, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'valid' verification, what format the results take, whether partial name matches are supported, or any error conditions. For a tool with this complexity and no structured output documentation, the description should do more.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the search can be done 'by license number or doctor name,' which slightly reinforces the parameter purposes but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('verify if a doctor has a valid professional license') and identifies the resource ('cedula profesional registered with SEP'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_doctor' by focusing specifically on license verification rather than general doctor search.

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 context by specifying search parameters (license number or doctor name), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_doctor' or provide guidance on which parameter to prioritize. It gives basic usage context but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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