Hospital or clinic profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's enumeration of returned content is largely redundant with the existing output schema, so it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose and then a compact routing paragraph; no filler. The returned-field list is slightly redundant against the output schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description only needed to orient the agent and route to siblings, which it does. Nothing essential is missing, though it offers no edge-case or prerequisite notes.

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 description coverage is 100%: the slug origin, the specialty Persian-text filter, and the doctors_limit semantics are all documented in the schema with min/max and defaults. The description's mention of doctor fields does not add parameter-level meaning, so 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?

States a specific resource (hospital/clinic profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: type, address, phone, website, map, about text, departments, and embedded doctors. It then names the sibling tools (pz_search_doctors, pz_doctor) so the agent can distinguish this profile fetch from the doctor-list and single-doctor tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for a paged doctor list sorted by nearest free time call pz_search_doctors with sort='earliest'; for a single doctor call pz_doctor(slug). This gives clear alternatives with conditions, though it never states when this profile tool is the wrong choice or any prerequisites.

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