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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies the authentication requirement and the conditional return logic (questions if status is 'needs_info', message if none). This is more informative than just the annotation, though it does not cover all edge cases like invalid order IDs.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: primary function, context, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action, avoids redundancy, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers core function, conditional return, and authentication, leveraging the output schema (not shown) to handle return details. It is complete for a simple read tool, though it does not specify prerequisites like whether the order must exist or be in a particular state beyond 'needs_info'.

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 clear descriptions for both order_id and bearer_token. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning; it references 'a specific order' and 'requires authentication,' which aligns with the schema but does not significantly augment it. 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves follow-up questions from the healthcare provider for a specific order, distinguishing it from siblings like provider_respond (which likely submits responses) and intake_questions (which handle intake). The verb 'get' and resource 'provider questions' are specific, with scope defined by 'for a specific order'.

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 on when to use the tool: to fetch pending provider questions for an order, with behavior conditional on order status ('needs_info'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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