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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavior: nothing about what the answer payload contains, whether it's empty when no anamnesis was submitted, or how it relates to the form definition.

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 resource and no filler. The second sentence, however, merely duplicates the parameter description already present in the schema.

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?

A single required parameter and a clean annotation set mean the basics are covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of the returned answers, which is the main thing an agent would need to know to use the result.

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 100% and the description simply repeats the schema text ('Id from list_subscriptions') verbatim, adding no format, source-detail or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 the resource (a subscription's anamnesis answers) and its scope, and the title supplies the verb 'see'. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as get_subscription_anamnesis_form, list_anamnesis_answers or get_anamnesis_overview, so an agent must still guess between them.

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 only guidance is where the ID comes from (list_subscriptions); there is no statement of when to call this versus the several anamnesis-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'of the plan' hints at context but doesn't tell the agent when this is the right tool.

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