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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: returns a list with specific fields, requires authentication, and each consent must be individually fetched and confirmed. There is no contradiction with annotations. The description enriches the agent's understanding of the flow without overexplaining.

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 main purpose, then elaborates with return fields, a list of required consents, and workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff. It's well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 has an output schema, the description still provides a clear summary of the return contents and the procedural context (individual consent fetching). It covers usage timing, authentication, and the workflow, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly for a read-only list tool.

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 intake_id and bearer_token described. The description adds 'Requires authentication,' which lightly reinforces bearer_token, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's verb+resource: 'Get the list of all consent documents.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it returns IDs, titles, summaries, and order, and by mentioning that individual consents are fetched via consent_text. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually specific to medication ordering.

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 for when to use the tool ('before ordering medication') and directs the user to consent_text for individual consent fetch and confirmation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with consent_status or consent_submit, but the workflow is implied well enough. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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