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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: the tool returns the patient's own steps as well as the link, and an unsupported state yields the list of served states instead of a link.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by how to use it and one edge case. Nothing is redundant, though the middle instruction sentence is operational advice rather than part of the tool's contract.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so: a link, the patient's steps, and the state-list fallback. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could mention that a state outside the service area is effectively a failure path worth checking.

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% with enums for medication and plan, so the parameters are already well documented. The description contributes only indirectly, by implying that state is validated against the clinic's service area, but does not explain the parameters themselves beyond the schema.

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: it returns the link where a patient starts their own online assessment, plus the steps they must perform. That is unmistakable against siblings like check_state, get_pricing, and get_medication_info, though it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives concrete operational direction — hand the link to the patient and do not complete the assessment on their behalf — which is exactly the kind of usage guidance an agent needs for this tool. It stops short of stating preconditions or telling the agent when to call the siblings instead.

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