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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: the tool prefers a curated pre-built panel when one fits, otherwise assembles individual tests within a budget. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 focused sentences, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by behavioral preference and a safety/boundary note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: input types, decision logic, budget constraint, and educational intent. A small gap is that it does not describe what kind of result the agent should expect, but this is not critical for selection and invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of goals, symptoms, and budget with examples and context, but does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Suggest'), names the resource ('TestWell panels and tests'), and identifies the exact trigger inputs (health goals and symptoms). It also distinguishes its matching behavior from the sibling tools by describing the preference for pre-built panels and an educational, non-diagnostic nature.

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 clear usage context: call this when the user states goals and/or symptoms and wants test recommendations. It also adds an important boundary ('Educational matching, not a diagnosis'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like search_tests or list_panels, so it misses the opportunity to rule them out directly.

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