Teladoc MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level without mentioning important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior for search results.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a search tool with straightforward parameters.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether all parameters are optional, or provide any context about the search behavior beyond the basic premise.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description lists the parameter names but provides no semantic context about what values are expected, format requirements, or how these parameters interact. The description mentions 'by specialty, condition, gender, or language' but doesn't explain what constitutes valid inputs for these fields.

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: searching Teladoc providers using specific criteria (specialty, condition, gender, language). It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('Teladoc providers'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_provider_details' beyond the search aspect.

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 like 'get_provider_details' or other sibling tools. It mentions search criteria but gives no context about prerequisites, when this search is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other provider-related operations.

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