Teladoc MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed info,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what details are included, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a provider details tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or the structure of returned data, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond implying that 'provider_id' or 'provider_name' are used to identify a provider. It doesn't explain if both parameters are required, how they interact, or what formats are expected, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a specific Teladoc provider'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_providers' or 'get_visit_history', which might also retrieve provider-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a provider ID or name, or clarify its role compared to siblings like 'search_providers' (which might list multiple providers) or 'get_visit_history' (which could include provider details). This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage.

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