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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond: it explains filler-word stripping and retrying on clinical words, that the matched term is reported, the popular alternation, and the guaranteed return shape with empty array behavior. This is rich behavioral context beyond annotation hints, with no contradiction.

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?

Four sentences with distinct purposes: purpose, natural-language handling, mode switch, and return shape. The most critical info is front-loaded, and every sentence carries meaning without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool is simple (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it processes input, alternate behavior, and return contract. It even notes the empty-case result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds value on the 'popular' parameter (explicit trending mode) and clarifies that 'query' can be a plain phrase. This is a slight enhancement over the baseline of 3, but not a full compensate since the schema already handles most semantics.

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 the tool resolves descriptions into AcuiQ symptom names and is the first step before search_protocols. It distinguishes itself from sibling search_protocols by explicitly naming the relationship and from get_symptom_detail by focus on name resolution. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'symptom names' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly orders usage as the step before search_protocols, which tells an agent when to invoke it. It also provides a clear conditional for the popular parameter (trending vs. searching). This is enough to guide selection among siblings, though it doesn't enumerate negative cases, the positive guidance is strong.

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