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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: injuries are date ranges that stay open until end_date is set, many fields should be inferred rather than asked, and only body_part warrants a clarifying question. The annotations correctly indicate a write operation with readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, trigger conditions, domain model, then a scannable INFER list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema descriptions.

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 9-parameter create tool, the description covers when to call, what to infer, what to ask, and the date-range semantics. Since an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, no critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra value with numeric severity anchors (minor twinge=2-3, moderate pain=5-6, severe/acute=8-9), an example for affected_movements, and a clear policy to ask only when body_part is unclear. This is above baseline but not maximal because the schema already carries much of the parameter information.

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: 'Log a new injury or aggravation.' It also lists concrete user signals like 'getting hurt, feeling pain, straining something' that trigger this tool. The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_injury and delete_injury.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user mentions getting hurt, feeling pain, straining, or describes an injury. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'if the injury already exists, use update_injury instead,' but the context is clear enough.

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