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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: latency (instant) and the absence of a daily quota, plus the exact return fields (question, summary, link). It does not mention result-count behavior or what an empty match set means, but the value added is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the usage directive and then the return/handoff details; nothing is wasted. Slightly loose phrasing around the locale sentence keeps it from being a model of tight structure.

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?

Return values needn't be explained because an output schema exists, yet the description still names them briefly, and it covers the search-to-full-answer workflow and locale behavior. The only real hole is limit semantics, which the schema documents numerically but not conceptually.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains locale well (language codes de/fr/hr, translated answers where available) and implies query content (a clinical question), but says nothing about limit — its default of 5 or maximum of 10 — leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (published CliniAtlas evidence answers) and characterizes the library as a set of worked answers to common questions, which differentiates it from generic literature search. It also names the follow-up sibling get_evidence_answer, so an agent can place it in the toolchain without opening any schema.

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?

"Call this first for a clinical question" is an explicit routing directive, reinforced with the reason (instant, no daily limit), and the handoff to get_evidence_answer when a match exists is spelled out. It stops short of telling the agent when to skip this and go to search_medical_evidence, lookup_pubmed, or lookup_eu_medicine instead.

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