practitioner_messaging

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact – the feature may be disabled by the practitioner, implying empty/absent results – but says nothing about return shape, permissions, or pagination.

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 compact sentence with the identifying information front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that some clarifying content was dropped rather than truly earned.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations are minimal, so the description carries the full burden for a read tool. It conveys what is returned and the activation condition but omits return format and what to do when the feature is off, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about profile_id. However, the single parameter is a self-explanatory practitioner profile id in context, so the gap is mild rather than severe; the description neither compensates nor actively misleads.

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 names a specific resource ('catégories de demandes par messagerie Doctolib') and gives concrete examples (renouvellement, résultats), which distinguishes it from booking/availability siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so the action (listing/retrieving) is inferred rather than stated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling practitioner tools. The clause 'si le praticien l'a activée' is a condition on results, not a usage decision rule.

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