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 the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the ownership scope (written to the signed-in user's record) and a date format constraint, but says nothing about duplicate handling, validation of ICD codes, or what a successful call returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the date-format constraint appended where it belongs. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably over-compressed given the undocumented parameters.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema and no per-field documentation, the description leaves most of the surface unexplained. An agent could call it with only 'name', but would have no guidance on what icdCode expects, whether resolvedAt is needed to mark a past condition, or what diagnosingDoctor should contain.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely doesn't. It clarifies only that the date-bearing fields (diagnosedAt, resolvedAt) use YYYY-MM-DD; name, notes, icdCode, and diagnosingDoctor are undocumented in both places, and the description never notes that name is the sole required field.

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 and resource ('Add a medical condition / diagnosis') and names the target record ('signed-in user's Vora record'), which is enough to tell it apart from vora_add_allergy, vora_add_symptom, and vora_add_medication by record type. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than vora_add_symptom, vora_add_allergy, or vora_add_medication, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The distinction must be inferred from the record-type noun alone.

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