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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the full return shape (location, cautions, meridian, co-selected points, URL, markdown twin) and reveals conditional behavior: a `guide` pointer appears only for the best-evidenced indication when a $5 mini-guide exists, with a rule for how to offer it. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core resolve-and-return behavior, the second gives a follow-up action, the third states a conditional rule. Every sentence earns its place and the example lists are dense but scannable.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers accepted inputs, return contents, the follow-up path (markdown twin), and the presentation rule for the optional guide pointer. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and shape the response appropriately.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description extends the schema's terse examples ('LI4', 'Hegu', '合谷') with formats the schema omits: lowercase zero-padded codes ('li04'), an English-name example ('Junction Valley'), and tone-marked pinyin ('hé gǔ'). This meaningfully clarifies accepted input variations.

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 ('Resolve') with a specific resource ('one acupoint') and enumerates the accepted identifier forms and the return payload. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_meridians, search_symptoms, and get_wiki_page by focusing on single-point resolution by various names, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other tool schemas.

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 gives actionable context: resolve a single point via code/name/pinyin, fetch the markdown twin when the full protocol table is needed, and only present the guide pointer when the person wants something to follow at home. It provides clear conditional guidance, though it never explicitly names when-not-to-use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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