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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: each result is a real study with authors, year, journal, and limitations note; never a THC-authored medical claim; and includes disclaimers about medical advice and outcome guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and examples, then output details, then disclaimers. Well-structured and mostly efficient, though the final disclaimer sentence is slightly wordy and somewhat repetitive of the medical-advice point.

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?

The description covers purpose and the nature of results, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with four parameters and 0% schema coverage, it lacks guidance on filters (topic, study_type) and limit, leaving invocation less complete than it could be.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only offers two example queries and does not explain the limit, topic, or study_type parameters, nor the enum values available. This is minimal compensation for four undocumented parameters.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('plain-language summaries of published research'), and the scope clearly distinguishes it from generic resource, practice, or game search siblings. An agent can tell it returns research summaries, not practices or terms, without opening another schema.

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?

Provides example queries that imply how to phrase a search, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_mindfulness_resources, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The medical disclaimer is a boundary, not usage guidance.

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