Specialities

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scale ('About 100 entries') and domain semantics for level and parent values, which help the agent interpret results rather than just repeat annotation claims.

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 purpose and compact overall. The level/parent sentence is somewhat telegraphic ('interventional cardiology -> cardiologist') but earns its place by clarifying hierarchy semantics.

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, 100% schema coverage, and full annotations, the description only needs to add routing and domain context, which it does. Minor gap: no note on result ordering or whether the ~100 entries are always returned in full.

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 query parameter is fully documented in the schema (Persian/slug, omit for all), so baseline is 3. The description's level/parent notes describe return values, not the parameter, so they add no parameter meaning.

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 verb (List) and resource (medical, paramedical and dental specialities) and ties the output purpose to a sibling (the slug dt_search_doctors needs), so an agent can distinguish it from dt_cities, dt_insurances, etc.

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 a clear downstream workflow: 'Next: dt_search_doctors(speciality=slug)', which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a chain. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to reach for an alternative sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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