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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is light. The description still adds useful substance: the response is a shallow projection (slug + name + one-line summary, not full marker detail), and it discloses the alias field that the schema doesn't mention. No return shape or edge-case (unknown slug) behavior is stated, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the return contract, then the user question it answers, then the follow-up route. The alias parenthetical is dense but earns its place as illustrative input examples.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the alias list. Combined with the schema's own slug-discovery pointer to mediora__list_panels, an agent has everything needed 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 a 3 is the floor. The description goes beyond it by making explicit what the slug resolves to and that names/summaries are the localized payload, which implicitly explains the purpose of the 'lang' parameter; concrete panel-slug examples reinforce the expected format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return the markers that make up a lab panel by slug') and names what is returned (marker slug, name, one-line summary, plus panel aliases). It is clearly distinct from sibling mediora__explain_marker, which it explicitly positions as the deeper-detail tool.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering question ('what's included in a CBC / lipid panel / CMP') and routes the agent onward to mediora__explain_marker for full detail. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use or point to mediora__list_panels for slug discovery in the description (that lives in the schema), so it falls just short of full coverage.

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