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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the output structure (split sections, version, effective date, confirmation prompt, withdrawal instructions) and imposes a strict behavioral requirement: present verbatim and do not summarize. It also notes the necessity of patient confirmation before proceeding. This is substantial behavioral context beyond 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 primary purpose, then logically details output composition, available consent types, mandatory presentation behavior, confirmation prerequisite, and authentication. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only fetch tool, the description covers purpose, output structure, usage rules, available types, confirmation flow, and authentication. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for both parameters, with consent_id described as 'from consent_list' and bearer_token described as authentication token. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on output and usage rather than parameter formatting or constraints. Baseline 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 fetches the full text of a specific consent document for patient review, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'consent document'. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the output contents (version, effective date, sections, etc.) and explicitly mentioning the available consent types.

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 when to use this tool by stating the agent must present the returned text verbatim to the patient and that the patient must confirm before consent_submit can be called. It also references consent_list for the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to consent_status, though context is clear.

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