list_doctors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that availability_summary is a regular weekly pattern, not live openings, and that doctor_id is used by downstream tools. It does not clarify the effect of include_inactive, but the main behavioral caveat is covered.

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 four short, purposeful sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the main action, then provides usage guidance, a caveat, and a usage example with no wasted words.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, the key limitation of availability_summary, and how the result connects to other tools. The missing include_inactive detail is a minor parameter-level issue and does not undermine overall completeness.

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 only parameter, include_inactive, is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides no description either. The example call with no arguments implies it is optional, but the active/inactive distinction is left entirely to inference from the parameter name and default. This is a notable gap.

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: list the clinic's doctors with specialty and usual weekly hours. It also differentiates the tool by noting that the returned doctor_id is what check_availability and book_appointment expect, positioning it distinctly among siblings.

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 to use this tool first when the caller does not name a doctor, and directs the agent to call check_availability for actual free slots instead of relying on the availability_summary. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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