List specialties

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is fully covered. The description adds useful context on ordering and on sub-specialties exposing a `parent` field, but since an output schema exists it does not need to describe return values and says nothing further about behavior beyond ordering.

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 sentences/paragraphs with no filler; the resource-plus-ordering fact is front-loaded and the routing advice follows immediately. Everything present earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the catalog contains, its ordering, the parent linkage, and the disambiguation workflow that motivates calling it.

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%: 'query' is already documented as a partial Persian name with 'شیر'/'قلب' examples and the omit-to-list-largest behavior, and 'limit' is fully bounded. The description repeats the same word-matching idea rather than adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The first clause names the concrete resource (medical specialties on exiryab.com), what each entry carries (doctor count), the sort order (most doctors first) and the sub-specialty/parent relationship. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from ey_search_doctors and ey_cities without opening the 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?

The second paragraph states the exact trigger — resolving an ambiguous Persian lay term ('قلب', 'پوست') into a canonical specialty string — and names the downstream call it feeds, ey_search_doctors(specialty=...). The cardiology-vs-heart-surgery example makes the ambiguity case concrete, so when-to-use is explicit rather than inferred.

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