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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It responsibly discloses that content is never stored, only aggregate counters are kept, and the output is not medical/legal/professional advice. This is strong behavioral context beyond a basic summary, though it stops short of detailing the exact output format.

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 the core purpose front-loaded, followed by privacy and disclaimer context. It is compact and free of padding, though phrases like 'Restore Clinic' and 'a mending lens' are tonal extras rather than essential invocation details.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers input, privacy, and limitations well. However, the return is only described as a 'structured read', leaving the agent uncertain about the exact shape or contents of the result. It also does not address how this tool differs from siblings like qm_second_opinion.

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% and the only parameter, 'transcript', is already well described in the schema. The description reinforces that symptoms, transcripts, or context are acceptable inputs but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's action: given symptoms or a transcript, it returns a structured read of likely conditions. It names the resource ('Restore Clinic diagnosis') and makes the non-authoritative nature explicit. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 clear usage context: use it when the user describes symptoms or pastes a transcript/context. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the input condition is stated plainly, so an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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