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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful trait beyond that – it returns a summary rather than full guide content – but says nothing about auth, empty results, or what a summary contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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, single-enum-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it retrieves and at what granularity. Only the return shape and failure behavior on an invalid topic are left to inference.

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 coverage is 0% but the single parameter is a closed enum whose six values are restated in the description with slight domain framing (e.g. 'records' = medical records, 'follow-up' care). This adds marginal meaning, but it largely mirrors the enum rather than explaining value semantics or defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Return the summary'), a specific resource (a ChinaHealth guide), and an explicit topic scope covering all six enum values. The resource is clearly disjoint from the siblings (get_hospital, get_price_ranges, search_treatments), though the description never says so explicitly.

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 topic enumeration implicitly tells the agent which subject areas are covered, and 'summary' hints at the expected depth. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives.

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