Doctor profile

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real behavioral context instead: `pay_online_now` is charged at booking and is usually 0 for office visits, `fee` means different things for office vs online visits, and booking requires an SMS-authenticated login. That is meaningful value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then dense but purposeful field-level detail. Every clause carries information (fee semantics, time zone, booking prerequisite); it is long but not padded.

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?

Covers the return shape (services[], reviews summary, waiting time, conditions), the Tehran-time convention, the input chain into dt_free_slots, and the booking auth hurdle. An output schema exists so return-field prose is partly redundant, but the description is complete enough for an agent to call and use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `doctor` parameter is already fully documented in the schema (hash id vs full page URL, slug not resolvable). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (a doctor's profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: bookable services, price in Toman, and next free time. This clearly separates it from siblings like dt_search_doctors (discovery) and dt_center (facility profiles).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Next: dt_free_slots, dt_reviews', and notes the prerequisite that booking needs an SMS login on the site and the user must be given `url`. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. to just find a doctor, use dt_search_doctors), so it is strong but not complete.

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