Clinic offer details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the authentication requirement for booking/payment and the instruction to surface `url` to the user, which an agent needs for the downstream flow.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the returned payload, the second carries the operational caveat. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its space by telling the agent what detail is available without opening the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description instead points at the one output value that matters downstream (`consultation_id` for dt_free_slots). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (hash id, numeric id, or URL). The description adds no parameter syntax of its own, so the schema does the heavy lifting — 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?

The description states a specific resource (one clinic offer) and enumerates the fields returned — price, discount, deposit, provider, location, terms, capacity, variants — which clearly separates it from dt_search_offers. It never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is an actionable workflow hint (booking/payment requires SMS login, hand the user `url`) and a cross-tool pointer (`consultation_id` feeds dt_free_slots), but no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-dt_search_offers guidance or prerequisites for the call itself.

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