list_specialities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (accent-insensitive filtering, the 123-entry fixed set, returned fields) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or limits, keeping it at a moderate 3.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and its role, then the filter behavior. Every clause earns its 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-optional-param list tool the description is nearly complete; only ordering/pagination behavior is left unspecified.

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 parameter meaning, and it does: query is accent-insensitive and the examples ('derma', 'kiné', 'ophtal') demonstrate substring/partial matching. It stops short of formally stating partial-match semantics, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Liste des 123 spécialités Doctolib') and enumerates the returned fields (slug, nom, id), making the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like autocomplete or search_filters, so it stays at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 hints at downstream usage ('slug à utiliser dans les autres outils') and explains the query filter, which implies when the lookup is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as autocomplete or search_filters, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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