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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — notably it does not warn that the operation is non-idempotent (duplicate allergies may be created), which is the one behavior an agent most needs here.

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?

One well-formed, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, brevity here comes at the cost of substance — the size is not proportionate to a five-parameter mutation tool.

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?

A write tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description of what is persisted or how duplicates are handled. It falls well short of what an agent needs to invoke it 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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them — not the required 'allergen', the severity enum, or diagnosedAt. With no structured documentation to fall back on, this leaves the caller guessing about every input.

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 (add) and resource (allergy) scoped to the signed-in user's Vora record, which distinguishes it from vora_add_condition or vora_add_medication by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, but the resource naming is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus vora_add_condition, vora_add_symptom, or vora_add_medication, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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