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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description complements this by adding that authentication is required, the tool returns an intake ID and estimated review time, and that a licensed US provider reviews the intake. This extra context is valuable beyond the annotation flags, though it doesn't elaborate on state changes or side effects.

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 four sentences, each providing essential information: the action, prerequisite, return value, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers prerequisites, provider involvement, and authentication. The complexity of nested intake_answers is partially addressed via the guidance to complete all fields. It lacks explicit information about error cases or idempotency, but annotations and schema fill some gaps, making it reasonably 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only noting that intake_answers must be completed and align with intake_questions. This is helpful but not substantial given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 function: submitting a completed medical intake questionnaire. It specifies the resource (intake questionnaire) and the action (submit for provider review), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like intake_questions (retrieving questions) and intake_status (checking status). The verb 'submit' is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating that all fields from intake_questions must be completed, implying this tool should be used after obtaining the questions. It also notes the downstream provider review and prescribing decisions, giving a sense of when in the workflow this applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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