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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond them: the library is small, results are question/summary/link, and locale returns translations 'where they exist' (i.e., partial coverage, not guaranteed).

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds return fields, scope, and the routing hint. Four short lines with little waste, though the return-field line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 3-param read-only search with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, alternative tool, and locale behavior. The only gap is limit semantics, which the schema's default/max partly carry on its own.

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 should compensate, and it partially does: locale is explained with examples ('de, fr, hr') and its translation behavior. However, limit (default 5, max 10) and query constraints are left entirely to the schema, so compensation is incomplete.

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 and resource ('Find published CliniAtlas evidence answers matching a clinical question') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_evidence_answer, which it names. An agent can route between search and full-answer retrieval without opening either 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to get_evidence_answer for the full answer, giving a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule. It also scopes expectations ('small set of worked answers'), but gives no guidance against the other siblings (lookup_pubmed, lookup_eu_medicine).

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