Reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description adds substantive traits: reviewer names are never returned (privacy), ordering differs by entity type, no server-side sort or filter exists, and pagination must be computed manually. These are real behavioral constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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 return shape and its ordering rule, followed by the operational note and the sibling pointer. Slightly dense mid-sentence field listing keeps it from being maximally tight, but there is little waste.

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 present, the field enumeration is partly redundant, but the ordering rule, privacy note, and pagination math fill in gaps the structured fields do not cover. Adequate for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot: the `of` enum changes ordering behavior, and pagination is described as total/limit. Page and limit semantics otherwise remain with the schema.

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 the exact resource (patient reviews) for three target types and enumerates the returned fields, including ordering semantics ('doctors and centers newest first, offers oldest first'). It explicitly routes the summary use case to the sibling dt_doctor, so an agent can separate it from other dt_* lookups without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: 'There is no sort or filter upstream: to find low ratings, page through (pages = total / limit)' and points to dt_doctor for aggregates. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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