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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns needs_review without classification') and the reason for quarantine (rule discrepancies reproduced). That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, and it is consistent with them.

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 tight sentences that front-load the status ('quarantined') and the practical consequence ('Returns needs_review'), then the prohibition. Dense phrasing like 'reproduced against reviewed teaching' is opaque but costs little space.

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 quarantined no-op with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (don't call it, it won't classify). However, the nested metrics/position/manufacturer inputs are entirely unexplained, leaving a gap if an agent ever needed to reason about the shape of expected input.

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?

Five parameters, including two nested objects and two enums, have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The only implicit signal is that inputs are irrelevant because the tool never classifies, which is thin compensation for a schema this complex.

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 identifies this as a 'Legacy HRM operation' that is 'quarantined,' which tells the agent it is a disabled/deprecated entry point, but it never states what HRM metric classification actually is (e.g., high-resolution manometry analysis) or what a working version would return. The effective behavior — 'Returns needs_review without classification' — is clear, but the nominal purpose is left vague.

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 an explicit prohibition: 'Do not invoke to obtain a diagnosis,' plus the deployment note that this name is omitted from new plugin products — strong when-not-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a working alternative among the siblings (e.g., score_clinical_instrument), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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