Search doctors

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real value: it discloses what each card contains, flags that the list's phone price differs from the booking page, and warns that online consultation prices are absent from cards. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining clauses carry functional information (card contents, price caveat, next steps) rather than filler. It is somewhat dense and wraps across many lines, but each sentence earns its place.

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 14-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the workflow chain, the pricing caveat, and the output card semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to know what to do next.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults, enums, and slug sourcing. The description only reiterates the filter list and adds a brief note that near_lat/near_lon narrow to a point, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Search doctors on Doctoreto') and enumerates the full filter surface (city, speciality, neighborhood, service tag, name, gender, insurance, visit type). This clearly separates it from the sibling search tools (dt_search_centers, dt_search_offers) which target different resources.

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 provides a workflow trail ('Next: dt_doctor -> dt_free_slots') and routes the agent to dt_doctor for pricing, which is clear when-to-use-which guidance. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool or how to choose among sibling search tools, keeping it short of a 5.

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