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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (a write operation), and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: authentication requirements, that a licensed US healthcare provider reviews the intake and makes prescribing decisions, and that it returns an intake ID and estimated review time. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main action and then provides prerequisite, return value, and human review context in three additional sentences. Each sentence earns its place; it is slightly dense but not verbose.

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 complexity (submission, auth, validation) and that an output schema exists (so return format doesn't need explanation), the description covers the essential context: prerequisite, authentication, human review process, and return info. It could optionally mention error handling, but is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that intake_answers must contain 'all fields from intake_questions', which is a critical constraint not fully expressed in the schema. It also reinforces that bearer_token is for authentication.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('completed medical intake questionnaire'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like intake_questions (which fetches questions) and intake_status (which checks status). The scope is precise: submission for provider review.

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 implies the usage workflow: 'All fields from intake_questions must be completed' signals the prerequisite to fetch questions first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of submission is clear relative to siblings. The 'Requires authentication' line further clarifies when the tool is appropriate.

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