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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the artifact is 'stable' and 'public' and explicitly notes that no generation occurs at call time, which signals instant, side-effect-free response.

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 action and unique value. Every word earns its place: 'stable public PDF artifact', 'shows what Toofi produces', and 'No generation is run at call time' all convey essential information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only demo tool with 0 required parameters and a full output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, the example content, and the key behavior (no generation), making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the language enum. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but it isn't required given the schema's thoroughness. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('stable public PDF artifact') plus its content (a patient-facing treatment-plan presentation for a missing tooth 11/root 11 example). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_dental_treatment_plan_pdf or example_* variants by emphasizing it's an artifact showing Toofi's output.

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?

The description provides clear context: it returns a pre-existing public PDF without running generation, implying it's for demonstration/reference rather than actual generation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like generate_dental_treatment_plan_pdf, but the contrast with 'No generation is run at call time' makes the intended use case evident.

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