practitioner_practical_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-lookup behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the existence of a 'tunnel de réservation' that resolves a slug to a profile — but says nothing about what happens on resolution failure or ambiguous identifiers.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first is a dense field inventory, the second handles the parameter contract. The long comma-separated field list is front-loaded but slightly heavy; nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it enumerates the returned data categories. Combined with the input-resolution note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure/edge behavior is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it states where profile_id originates (search_practitioners) and that url_or_slug is an alternative resolved through the booking tunnel. It leaves the URL-vs-slug format and the precedence/mutual-exclusivity rule implicit, which is the only 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 names the resource (a practitioner's practical information) and enumerates the concrete fields returned — opening hours, new-patient acceptance, teleconsultation, sector, carte Vitale, payment methods, languages, addresses. That is far more specific than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling practitioner_booking_info, which likely covers adjacent territory.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list, and the second sentence does clarify how to supply the inputs (profile_id from search_practitioners, else url_or_slug). That is parameter-sourcing guidance rather than when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance; no exclusion or sibling routing is given.

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