List clinicians

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's disclosure that contact details are withheld by default and only surfaced via include_contact_details is genuinely additive behavioral context. It does not, however, cover pagination or result-ordering behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 no filler; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded and the conditional behavior is attached at the end. Every clause carries information.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields and the privacy default, which covers the main gaps. Pagination and filtering are only in the schema, but the description is otherwise sufficient 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (cursor, max_results, include_contact_details) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the email-gating flag adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (the Organization's clinicians) and enumerates the returned fields (display name, title, specialty, id), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It even flags that the id is the one other tools consume. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the singular get_clinician sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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: list clinicians here, and reach for include_contact_details only when email addresses are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of get_clinician for per-clinician detail or the agenda/availability siblings, so the routing is left to inference.

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