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

Adds real behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: an id from another condition's partition is 'rejected, never served', and the tool is scoped strictly to family/life topics with medical questions redirected. However, the closing three sentences restate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint almost verbatim, which duplicates structured data an agent already has.

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 first half is front-loaded and efficient, correctly leading with the payload and the match_resources sequencing. The second half balloons: three sentences re-explain annotation flags that are already supplied as machine-readable structured data, adding length without new information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It also covers scope limits (non-medical), the condition-partition constraint, and the intended call sequence, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the cross-partition rejection rule for resource_id, which tells the agent an id paired with the wrong condition will fail rather than be served.

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 ('Returns the full vetted record for one resource by its id within one condition') and enumerates the payload fields (description, coverage, cost model, referral mechanics, last-verified date). It clearly positions itself as the follow-up to match_resources, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use after match_resources when the user wants more detail on a specific listing') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('Never use for diagnosis, treatment advice, drug information, or symptom interpretation; redirect medical questions to the clinician'). Both the trigger and the exclusion are stated rather than implied.

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