doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what it returns, or how it behaves if the optional school_code is omitted or invalid. 'Check' implies a query but gives no additional context.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, so it is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's functionality. It does not earn its place because it is too vague to be useful; it is more under-specification than effective brevity.

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?

The description is fundamentally incomplete. Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous name, the description must fill many gaps but instead leaves the agent with no understanding of what 'provider readiness' means, what input to provide, or what result to expect. This is inadequate for a tool with any complexity.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, school_code, with no schema-level description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain its meaning, format, or relationship to 'provider readiness.' The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Check provider readiness' has a verb ('Check') and a resource ('provider readiness'), but 'provider' is ambiguous and does not clarify whether it refers to a school, teacher, or other entity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_class_day or search_school, which all relate to different aspects of the same domain.

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 description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool would be preferred over siblings.

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