Suggest doctors, specialities and centers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the matching behavior: doctors match by name text only, and results carry hash ids rather than raw ids. That is genuinely useful nuance beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss ranking when city_id is absent or result caps.

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 one-line purpose, then usage and mapping, then next steps — a sensible funnel with no filler sentences. The line-wrapping and mid-sentence example make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 and the description still summarizes the four return categories (doctors with hash id, speciality slugs, service tags, centers), which is what the agent needs to route the result. With only three simple parameters and full schema coverage, nothing essential is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by framing 'query' as a free-phrase-to-slug translator and by clarifying the semantic difference between the doctor and speciality result sets. It doesn't add format detail beyond the schema's own examples for query and city_id.

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 verb and resource ('Search-box suggestions: matching doctors (with hash id), speciality slugs, service tags and centers') and enumerates exactly what kinds of entities come back. It also names downstream siblings, so an agent can distinguish this from dt_search_doctors or dt_center without reading either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('turn a free phrase into the slugs and ids the other tools need') plus a concrete workflow example mapping 'قلب' to the speciality slug. It also states a conditional preference — prefer the returned speciality slug over the doctor list for specialities — and names next-step tools.

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