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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context beyond those: it specifies exactly what content is returned and clarifies the tool is an educational reference, not medical advice. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then lists content, then provides usage examples and disclaimer. Two sentences carry all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned. With one parameter, complete usage guidance, and clear behavioral context, the description is comprehensive for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'diagnosis' parameter. The description enriches this by giving concrete examples (e.g., 'Risk for Infection', 'Acute Pain') and clarifying that it expects NANDA-style diagnoses, which is valuable beyond the 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 the tool retrieves care plan material for a specific NANDA-style nursing diagnosis, listing concrete components (definition, related factors, defining characteristics, goals, interventions, conditions). It distinguishes itself by focusing on diagnosis-specific material rather than a full care plan or disease information.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a nursing student asks about a diagnosis rather than a disease' and includes examples like 'risk for infection', 'acute pain'. It also provides a when-not ('rather than a disease') and a disclaimer ('Educational reference, not medical advice'), but does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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