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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds the useful constraint that it writes to the signed-in user's own record and the date format, but does not disclose the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false (each call adds a new entry) or whether entries can be edited afterwards.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the date-format detail. It is efficient, though notably sparse given the parameter surface.

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 write tool with 8 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does too little: it never explains field semantics or the shape of a successful result. The annotations cover safety, but the field-level meaning an agent needs to fill the schema 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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description only clarifies the format of the two date fields. Nothing explains the meaning or expected values of dosage, frequency, status, notes, or prescribingDoctor, nor whether status defaults to 'active' — this is the main gap for a tool with this many undocumented fields.

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 medication) plus scope (the signed-in user's Vora record) and gives a concrete example (antibiotic course with start/stop dates). An agent can distinguish it from vora_add_allergy or vora_add_condition, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the example (recording a dated medication course), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about how it differs from recording supplements or allergies, and no note on whether repeated calls create duplicate entries.

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