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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the output shape (flagging Normal/High/Low, explaining each biomarker, suggesting questions) and sets a firm educational boundary (never diagnoses or recommends treatment). It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effect behavior or mentioning the 100-item input cap.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, then output behavior and educational limits, then input constraints. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output behavior, educational boundaries, and input options. It is nearly complete, though it omits the input cap and does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful selection semantics by saying to provide either `results` or `lab_upload_id` and that the upload ID is Furva-only, which is not clearly stated in the schema itself.

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 verb and resource: it explains veterinary lab results for dogs and cats, flags biomarkers, and suggests vet questions. This is clearly distinct from a biomarker lookup or retest-timing tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools to reinforce the distinction.

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 one clear usage condition: provide either `results` or `lab_upload_id`, with the latter restricted to Furva users. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus `get_biomarker_info` or `suggest_retest_timing`, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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