watch_practitioner

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds that registration happens via the external doctolib-mcp-watch mechanism and must be scheduled, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it omits persistence, auth needs, and deduplication behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter caveats appended. No filler, though the parenthetical about doctolib-mcp-watch is slightly cryptic rather than wasteful.

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 write tool that registers an ongoing watch, the description covers the trigger and two parameter behaviors but omits what is returned (watch identifier), how to cancel (stop_watch), and whether watches persist across runs. Adequate for a first call but not fully complete given six parameters and no output schema.

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 parameter meaning and only partially does. It usefully explains motive_id fallback behavior (URL motive, else first bookable motive) and the before=YYYY-MM-DD exclusion rule, but leaves days, label, practice_id, and url_or_slug completely opaque.

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 verb ("Surveille") and resource ("praticien"), and states the concrete effect: a notification when a new slot opens. It is distinguishable from watch_area (which watches an area) by naming the practitioner scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus watch_area, run_watches_now, or list_watches, nor any prerequisites for setting up a watch. The clause "à planifier" hints the watch must be scheduled/run separately but does not say how or via which sibling.

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