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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added value is the source attribution, language coverage, and the explicit disclaimer that output is educational rather than diagnostic advice. That disclaimer materially shapes how an agent should present results, which annotations alone would not convey.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: what the tool returns and from where, who it is for, and the safety/input constraints. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 does tell the agent to expect a plain-language explanation sourced from MedlinePlus, and it covers language support and input hygiene. Return shape details (e.g., fallback when a term is not found) are not addressed, a minor gap for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 both parameters are already documented, setting a baseline of 3. The description exceeds that by constraining the 'term' input to the term alone and prohibiting names or other personal details, which is a semantic constraint not present in 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 — a plain-language explanation of a medical condition, medicine, lab test or procedure — and names the authoritative source (MedlinePlus, US NLM) plus the supported languages. The only sibling is unrelated, so there is no ambiguity about which tool handles terminology lookup.

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 clear usage context (family caregivers interpreting an aging parent's diagnosis, prescriptions or test results) and an explicit boundary: educational only, never a diagnosis or treatment recommendation. It does not name any alternative tool or when-not-to-use case beyond that scope caveat, but the sibling set offers nothing to redirect to.

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