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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false. The description goes beyond by disclosing that severe side effects trigger auto-flagging for immediate provider review and return urgent guidance, and that authentication is required. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: what it does, the severe-case behavior, and the auth requirement. No waste or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the core behavior, edge-case behavior (severe), and auth context. It does not elaborate on non-severe outcomes or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the schema and output schema richness. Slightly more detail on the default workflow could push it to 5.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the consequence of the severity parameter ('severe' causes auto-flagging and urgent guidance) and reinforcing the auth requirement for bearer_token. This goes beyond simple parameter type definitions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Log side effects a patient is experiencing'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like portal_log_weight. The additional detail about severe cases being auto-flagged further specifies the tool's unique behavior.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when a patient reports side effects), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks the specific 'use this instead of X' guidance present in high-quality examples, though the intended use is reasonably clear from the verb and resource.

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