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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — the student receives reminders, i.e. a side effect outside the record itself. It stops short of duplicate handling, whether the regimen is recurring indefinitely, or permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The '(or water)' parenthetical earns its place by widening what can be registered, though the sentence tries to carry regimen facets and the reminder side effect at once.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and one side effect but omits what is returned (e.g. the new supplement id), duplicate behavior, and edit-vs-create routing. Adequate to start a call, not sufficient to call it confidently.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate and does so only partially: 'dose, times and days' maps to dose_amount/dose_unit, times and days_of_week. It says nothing about the ambiguous units_per_take, the name/type pairing, or notes, leaving several required fields unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (registers) and resource (a supplement, or water, for a student) plus the regimen facets it captures (dose, times, days). It is clearly distinguishable from update_student_supplement and list_student_supplements by the create verb, though it never names those siblings 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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance. An agent gets no signal on how this differs from update_student_supplement (editing an existing regimen) or when to check list_student_supplements first to avoid duplicates, and no prerequisites such as resolving studentId via list_students.

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