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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: that the output is a connect link, that proxy access by the parent is required, and that the record appears only on sahara.synodha.com and never in chat — a meaningful privacy/scope disclosure.

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 core purpose and return value are front-loaded in the first clause, with supporting scope context after. The two trailing sentences about Sahara's product and hosting are slightly tangential for a lookup tool but do earn their place by explaining what the returned link leads to.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and privacy scope adequately. It stops short of describing the negative case (what is returned or how to respond when the health system is not supported), which is the one remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter is documented with concrete examples ('Kaiser', 'Mayo Clinic'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no matching guidance (e.g., fuzzy matching or accepted name formats), so the baseline 3 applies.

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: checks whether a hospital or health system offers Epic MyChart that Sahara can connect to, and says it returns a connect link. The only sibling, explain_health_term, is clearly a different function, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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 implies this is the pre-connection lookup step ('returns the link to connect') and explains the surrounding workflow, but it never explicitly states when to call it, what to do with a negative result, or which tool handles the next step. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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