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 safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the delivery context (the form appears in the app for the student), but never discloses the push-notification side effect, the default expiry behavior, or what happens if a form is already pending.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. It is arguably too thin for a mutation with a notification side effect, but that is a completeness issue rather than wasted prose.

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?

With a fully documented 4-parameter schema and safety annotations, the essentials are present, but the description omits the main behavioral facts an agent needs: that the call may push a notification to the student, what a successful send returns (no output schema exists), and how it relates to list_anamnesis_forms and get_anamnesis_overview in the workflow.

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%, so studentId, aamnesis_form_id, expires_at and the notify_student default of true are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Sends an anamnesis form') and adds the delivery channel ('for the student to fill in the app'), so it is distinguishable from siblings like send_checkin or send_message. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus send_checkin or send_message, nor any preconditions such as the student needing to exist or the form needing to come from list_anamnesis_forms. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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