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

Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond this: severe severity triggers auto-flagging for immediate provider review and returns urgent guidance, plus requires authentication. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences. The first defines the core purpose, the second adds critical behavioral caveats. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Combined with a rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential points: purpose, severe-case behavior, and authentication. The output schema handles return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for this moderately complex 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description enriches the 'severity' parameter by explaining the special severe-case behavior and implicitly references 'bearer_token' through the authentication requirement, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

States clear verb+resource: 'Log side effects a patient is experiencing.' This distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling logging tools like portal_log_weight and portal_message by specifying the clinical 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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('a patient is experiencing' side effects) and adds a conditional behavior for severe cases that helps guide decision-making. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the domain specificity makes this less critical.

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