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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns different messages depending on the order status ('needs_info' vs. no pending questions) and that authentication is required. This goes beyond the annotation to explain real behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence about prescribing decisions adds useful context, though it could be merged with the first to reduce redundancy. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a tool with conditional behavior.

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 the essential context: what the tool does, when it returns questions vs. a message, and authentication requirements. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with both order_id and bearer_token already described. The tool description does not add extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden and the parameters are straightforward.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving follow-up questions from a healthcare provider for a specific order. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like intake_questions (patient intake) and provider_respond (responding to questions) by specifying the resource and context.

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 provides clear context—use this when you need provider questions for an order—and even explains the conditional behavior based on order status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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