Neighborhoods

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are ordered most-doctors-first, some entries are district groupings that double as filters, and nearby cities are included. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the added content is meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the parenthetical examples and the follow-up usage tip earn their place. Minor structural awkwardness from the mixed prose/semicolon construction, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, ordering, filter semantics, and a next-step hint. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only explicit alternative-tool guidance missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that a slug is the expected identifier but adds little about city, limit, query, or speciality semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 resource and scope: neighborhoods of a city plus nearby cities, each with a doctor count. It implies its distinction from dt_cities (which returns cities, not neighborhoods) and from dt_specialities, but doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of the top band.

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?

It gives downstream usage (feed the slug into dt_search_doctors(city=..., neighborhood=slug)) and one conditional (suggest a nearby city when the user's city has few doctors). However it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like dt_cities, leaving tool selection to inference.

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