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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds real behavioral value: every statement must carry a citation and source, and when no reliable source exists the tool explicitly says it found nothing. It also discloses that it will refuse diagnostic and prescription requests, which is useful abstention behavior not visible in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: grounding source first, citation requirement and refusal path second, scope exclusions last. The most decision-relevant constraint (official base only, cited) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers grounding, citation behavior, fallback when no source is found, and scope limits. Only the shape/length of the returned answer is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'question' parameter already documents Portuguese language and the 400-character limit. The description adds only that the question should be a general health or exam doubt, which is context rather than syntax, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: answers a general health or exam question, grounded solely in the official guidelines of the Dr. Mais Vida base, with a citation per statement. The clause 'não usa dados da pessoa' implicitly separates it from check_lab_result (personal lab data), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear exclusions: no personal data, no diagnosis, no medicine or dosage recommendation, and only general doubts. These boundaries steer the agent away from personal-result tools, but it never names an alternative sibling to use instead for those cases.

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