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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by indicating a fetch operation. It also adds transparency by explaining the condition under which a guide pointer appears and when to proceed to checkout, without contradicting the read-only nature.

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?

The description is three sentences long, reasonably focused, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes some extra guidance about the markdown twin and the guide pointer, which adds value but makes it slightly less concise than strictly necessary.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields and the special guide pointer behavior. It does not describe the overall response structure, but that is acceptable since no output schema is provided and the key information is mentioned.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'name' as a symptom name with an example. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or possible values, so it matches the baseline expected from a fully documented schema.

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 clearly states that the tool gets details for a specific symptom, listing the specific fields returned (canonical name, protocol count, page URL, markdown twin). It distinguishes itself from search tools by focusing on a single symptom's detail retrieval, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a usage tip ('the markdown twin is the cheapest way to read every protocol for one symptom in a single fetch') and instructs when to trigger create_checkout for the guide pointer. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the search-like siblings (search_symptoms, search_protocols), so some contextual guidance is missing.

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