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 write/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful facts the annotations do not: the 1-10 severity scale, the YYYY-MM-DD date format, and that the entry is scoped to the signed-in user (no user parameter). It says nothing about what happens on duplicate submissions or what is returned.

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 core action and followed by the only format detail that could be misused (the date string). No filler.

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 append-style logging tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the unexplained notes and durationDays parameters and the absence of any duplicate/idempotency guidance leave gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It documents the severity range and date format and implies the signed-in-user scoping, but leaves two parameters (notes, durationDays) entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 ("Record a symptom") plus the payload it expects (severity score 1-10, date, signed-in user), which separates it from vora_list_symptoms and vora_resolve_symptom. It does not explicitly contrast with near-neighbors like vora_add_observation or vora_add_condition, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 says what it records but never states when to choose this over vora_add_observation, vora_add_condition, or vora_resolve_symptom, nor any preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the name and verb.

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