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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that readOnlyHint is true because it reads bundled, human-verified data with no network calls or state changes, and that openWorldHint is false because it never touches external systems. This is useful transparency. However, it simply restates the annotation values rather than adding behavioral details beyond them, such as rate limits or caching behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage constraints, and closes with annotation explanations. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits well. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema is absent, but it could mention pagination or result limits. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent's needs.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the enum values and the scoping rule. The description doesn't add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb (searches), the exact resource (InWithYou non-medical guides), the scope (one condition by topic), and the return fields (title, excerpt, audience, URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like match_resources or get_resource_detail by emphasizing bundled, human-verified guide content.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('lead with guide content before asking the user anything') and when not to ('Never use for diagnosis, treatment advice, drug information, or symptom interpretation; redirect medical questions to the clinician'). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings such as match_resources, which likely serves a different matching purpose.

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