practitioner_booking_info

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 content-level context (what the returned data includes, that agendas may be closed), but says nothing about auth needs, error cases, or shape of the response.

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 nested parenthetical lists make it slightly dense, but every clause names actual returned content rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data, which partially compensates. However, for a required-input fetch tool the missing parameter semantics and absent usage guidance leave the definition only minimally complete.

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?

There is one parameter, url_or_slug, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies 'd'un praticien' and never explains whether the input is a URL, a slug, or what format is accepted, leaving a real gap.

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 concrete resource (a practitioner's booking-tunnel data) and enumerates its contents: locations, agendas, and all booking motives with their constraints. An agent understands what it retrieves, but the description never distinguishes it from the close sibling practitioner_practical_info, which also covers address/phone-style data.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many siblings (practitioner_practical_info, find_slots, get_availabilities). The agent must infer the call site from the resource name alone.

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