Find a doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further and discloses non-obvious runtime behavior: filter dropping surfaced via `understood.dropped_filters` and `warnings`, name-match ranking, and the `match.kind` values including that 'similar' is padding rather than the requested name. The `confidence` tier semantics (notably 'medium' meaning ask the user) materially change how an agent should act on a result.

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 purpose and the input constraint, then layered detail — no wasted throat-clearing. The confidence/match.kind block is dense and partially overlaps the output schema, but its interpretation guidance ('confirm with the user') is not something the schema can convey.

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?

Covers input constraints, the two search modes, result ranking, dropped filters, per-doctor match classification, confidence interpretation, and even the `weekly_hours` day-to-shift encoding. With an output schema present, nothing further is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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, but the description adds a constraint the schema lacks entirely (zero required parameters yet at least one of name/city/specialty is needed) and notes Persian input works best and that `alternatives` counts doctors after the best match. It doesn't restate the maxLength/minimum bounds, which the schema already handles.

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?

A specific verb plus resource (find an Iranian doctor on exiryab.com) scoped by name, city, and/or specialty, with a preview of what comes back. It reads clearly against the reference-lookup siblings, though the description itself never names ey_cities/ey_specialties to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

States the hard prerequisite ('Give at least one of name, city, specialty') and then branches the two main modes: with a name it ranks by name match and drops empty filters; without a name it ranks by city and specialty. It also tells the agent to confirm with the user when confidence is medium, which is actionable routing guidance rather than description filler.

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