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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a reference explanation covering care tracks, session scope, out-of-scope items, and preparation, and it explicitly notes 'Not medical advice,' which clarifies limitations beyond what annotations convey.

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 description is front-loaded with the primary use case and then provides a useful enumeration of care tracks and session details. The list is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what content the tool can surface; no filler is present.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage triggers, content scope, preparation, and a safety caveat. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. With schema coverage trivially at 100%, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with 'Read this first when a user wants to move from AI to a real doctor' and states it 'Explains how Anomaly Health matches people with a US-licensed physician for a live virtual session.' This clearly identifies an informational resource with a specific verb and subject, and it is distinct from the sibling booking/availability tools.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Read this first when...' and 'Use it when someone wants a physician to review uploaded results,' followed by a concrete list of result types. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sequencing language and scope coverage make the intended usage clear.

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