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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that behaviors apply to record reads only and that every scenario returns its Bundle, reinforcing the read-only nature without contradicting annotations. This is useful but not extensive; no additional behavioral details like error handling or rate limits are provided.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and usage condition are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral clarification is in the second. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential usage context (when to use, what it returns) and does not need to explain return format (output schema exists) or parameter enumeration (schema does). The presence of list_demo_scenarios as a sibling is implicitly referenced in the schema, so no additional context is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% for the single optional 'scenario' parameter, including an enum and description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema's mention of 'from list_demo_scenarios' is not repeated in the description, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 returns the complete fictional FHIR R4 Bundle for a given scenario, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch individual resources (e.g., get_demo_allergies, get_demo_conditions). The phrase 'complete fictional FinchNode FHIR R4 Bundle' names the specific resource and scope, making it 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?

The description opens with 'Use this when a prototype or test needs the complete... Bundle,' providing a clear trigger condition. It implies that for single-resource needs, the sibling get_demo_* tools are more appropriate, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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