Get Service Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the contextual fact that it is required for appointment/encounter creation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, result limits, or the format of returned data. Given that annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds modest value but is not rich in behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact: one sentence for the core purpose, one for the usage context, and one for the optional filters. It front-loads the most important information and has zero fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning, and it is easy to scan.

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 read-only lookup tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (service locations), why it is needed (for appointments/encounters), and how to narrow results. It does not mention return format, pagination, or field details, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, these omissions are minor. The 'required for' context is particularly valuable for an agent planning multi-step workflows.

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 100% coverage with each parameter individually described (practiceId, practiceName, serviceLocationId). The description only mentions filtering 'by practice or location ID,' which omits practiceName and slightly mischaracterizes it as an ID filter (it is a name filter). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description adds little beyond what is already present, and the slight inaccuracy prevents a higher score.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('service locations') and clarifies they are offices/facilities. It also ties the tool to a concrete downstream need ('Required for creating appointments and encounters'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like tebra_get_appointments or tebra_get_practices. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'Required for creating appointments and encounters,' giving a strong contextual trigger for when to call it. It also mentions optional filters, implying usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other reference data (e.g., providers, procedures), though the context makes that fairly clear. It's a solid usage guideline with no exclusions.

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