search_practitioners

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: result fields, the incomplete available_within_days filter, Doctolib language codes, default exclusion of pharmacy teleconsultation kiosks, and the effect of online_booking_only=False. It stops short of explaining pagination/limit behavior or rate limits, but it significantly enriches the annotation-only baseline.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by result fields and bulleted filter notes. The structure is efficient for a complex search tool, though the result-field list is dense and some parameter gaps remain rather than being addressed compactly.

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?

For a 13-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description gives a useful purpose statement and output overview. However, it leaves many parameters undocumented and omits pagination/limit behavior, so it is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies speciality, location broadly, available_within_days, languages, online_booking_only, and the default telehealth kiosk exclusion, but leaves lat vs lng vs city, radius_km, limit, sector_1_only, unscheduled_care, and video_consultation unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb/resource/scope: find practitioners of a specialty around a location, sorted by distance. It also names the detail-lookup siblings via profile_id → practitioner_practical_info and slug → practitioner_booking_info, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from follow-up tools.

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 explains what the tool returns and gives filter caveats, but it never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_availabilities, find_slots, or get_availabilities. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or tool-selection routing.

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