Get Practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('all practices associated with the Tebra account') and return-field context, but does not discuss potential pagination, rate limits, or open-world caveats. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 description is one clean sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the returned data fields. Every word contributes value and there is no redundant filler.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, this is complete: it states what is returned, the scope ('all practices associated with the Tebra account'), and the key output fields. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap adequately.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on outputs instead.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all practices associated with the Tebra account.' It also enumerates the returned fields (practice IDs, names, NPI, tax ID, contact info), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling getters like providers or service locations.

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 implies clear usage: call this tool when you need the account's practice-level identifiers or contact information. It provides enough context for an agent to select it over other getters, and there are no competing practice-related siblings, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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