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

With no annotations, the description still adds some behavioral context: it identifies the underlying table (rs_indication), dataset size (8.7k rows), and the kinds of entity fields involved (names, aliases, hierarchy). However, it does not describe matching behavior, return format, read-only semantics, or limits beyond what the schema already covers.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The resource is front-loaded and the dataset identity and field scope follow immediately.

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 description covers the dataset and broad field scope, and the schema is well documented, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent still lacks explicit return-shape and usage-vs-detail guidance. It is minimally adequate for a simple search tool but leaves clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents keyword, limit, fields, and offset. The description adds context that the tree covers Chinese/English names, aliases, and parent/root nodes, but it does not clarify whether keyword matching applies to all of those fields or how results are structured.

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 and resource: searching the indication tree (rs_indication, 8.7k rows), and names the searchable/returned fields (Chinese/English names, aliases, parent/root nodes). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_indication_detail.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_indication_detail or search_drugs_by_indication. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'search'.

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