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

Annotations already indicate destructive/read-only/idempotency hints. The description adds the authentication requirement and purpose context, but does not detail side effects, record creation behavior, or error conditions. It neither contradicts nor substantially extends the annotation-provided behavioral security profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only necessary details (required inputs and authentication). No redundant or vague language.

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 small parameter set, presence of an output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description sufficiently covers purpose, inputs, and authentication. It could mention whether this creates a new record or overwrites, but the verb 'log' implies appending, so the description is adequate for a simple logging 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%, so parameter documentation is already complete. The description restates the required parameters but does not add new semantic insight (e.g., units, formats, or constraints) beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('log') and resource ('a patient's weight') for a clear purpose ('tracking progress on their treatment plan'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like portal_log_side_effects and portal_message.

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 by stating the purpose and listing required inputs (patient_id, weight in pounds, date) and authentication. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific purpose makes the usage scenario clear.

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