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

Despite annotations covering the safety hints, the description adds high-value behavioral context the annotations cannot: a phone notification is dispatched, per-call billing of 20 points applies, the call returns transactionId/status in an async approval flow, and retries/auto-approval are prohibited. This materially informs invocation decisions.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and cost warning, then the workflow and prohibitions; every sentence carries operational value. Slightly dense with several clauses, but nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (transactionId, status) and explaining the next step, fully describing this half of a two-step asynchronous flow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with four fully documented required params and an enum for authProvider, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 (request simple identity verification) and resource (national health checkup result lookup), and clearly distinguishes this prerequisite step from the get_health_checkup sibling it feeds into. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: call only after user confirmation, do not repeat requests while approval is pending, do not auto-approve, and after approval pass transactionId to get_health_checkup. Covers when-to-use, when-not, and the named downstream alternative.

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