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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behaviour: processing is transient, explicit user consent is mandatory, and PHI/diagnostic inference are rejected. That is real operational context beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two hard constraints (consent, scope exclusions). No filler, and the most important safety caveat is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the consent/PHI constraints are adequately covered. What is missing is guidance on the four undocumented input fields, which for a five-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage is a noticeable hole.

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 only 20% (just consentConfirmed is documented), so the description must carry the load for the other four parameters. It gestures at 'timing' and 'impact' vocabulary, which map to two parameters, but leaves 'description' and 'bodyArea' unexplained and gives no format or length expectations. Partial compensation for a large coverage gap.

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 names a specific transformation: organising a user-authored sensation description into neutral sensation, timing, pattern and impact vocabulary. That is more concrete than the name 'find_symptom_words' alone and tells an agent this is a vocabulary-normalisation step. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like build_health_timeline or reflect_on_flare, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the first-pass normalisation step, and the exclusions ('PHI and diagnostic inference are outside its scope') plus the consent requirement act as partial when-not guidance. No alternative sibling tool is named and no explicit triggering condition is given, so routing between this and its siblings remains guesswork.

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