Visit price

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: what the total represents (what the online-visit invoice shows), the refund-on-cancel value included, and the important edge case where in-person visits return 0 and why.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the first front-loads what is returned, the second the applicability caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant content (what the value means, when it is nonzero) comes first.

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 so return structure is documented, yet the description adds the interpretive layer that matters for this tool: what the payable total means and why in-person prices read as 0. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is documented with format patterns, source tools (pz_doctor, pz_search_doctors cards), and examples. The description's only parameter-relevant note ('5532' = online visit) already appears in the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data; 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 states a specific resource and result: the exact price of one service in Toman, enumerated as doctor's fee, VAT, payable total, plus the refund-on-cancel setting. This is precise enough that an agent immediately understands it returns a cost breakdown, not availability or profile data like its siblings.

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 clear usage context: 'Most useful for online visits (center_id \'5532\')' and warns that in-person office visits usually return 0 because the fee is not published. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it names no specific sibling alternative to prefer when this tool does not apply.

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