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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns Markdown and, when called without a path, lists available guides and conditions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the path catalog is compactly organized, making the definition easy to scan and apply.

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 read-only tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and a rich output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the accepted path forms, and the no-path behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters and the lang enum, with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by enumerating accepted path prefixes (guides, conditions, biomarkers, lab-locations, compare) and by specifying that omitting the path lists available content, which helps an agent construct valid calls.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource type ('TestWell's educational pages'), and enumerates the exact path families it serves. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_test or search_tests because it is explicitly scoped to educational content such as guides, conditions, biomarkers, lab locations, and comparisons.

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 concrete usage context: pass a site path to retrieve a page and call with no path to list available guides and conditions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the path-family enumeration makes the appropriate use case clear.

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