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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'built from a fictional case (no real patient data)' and clarifies the return format (page, PDF link, sections), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 primary purpose and contents, followed by usage guidance and safety. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only sample tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and adds a privacy-relevant detail. No output schema exists, so not explaining return values beyond the listing is acceptable.

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 has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter detail. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add anything here.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns links to a sample Zicron medical chronology'. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it is a fictional sample to view before sending a case, which distinguishes it from quote/request tools.

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 an explicit context: 'Use this when a user wants to see what the deliverable looks like before sending a case.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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