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 description adds value by disclosing the return shape (slug, name, marker count). It stops short of noting result size or whether the list is static/paginated, but that's a minor gap for a small fixed catalog.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the routing hint. The long parenthetical enumeration of panel types is slightly bulky but communicates catalog coverage and is the most informative part of the description.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the sibling pointer, which is everything an agent needs to call a zero-arg list tool 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options.

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 (List) and resource (lab panels in the Mediora catalog), enumerates representative panel types, and specifies the return payload (slug + name + marker count). It also distinguishes itself from mediora__explain_panel by name.

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?

Explicitly routes marker-level lookups to mediora__explain_panel, making the boundary between the two tools clear. It doesn't state preconditions or when-not to call it, but for a zero-arg catalog listing that context is mostly implicit.

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