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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the requirement for explicit consent, the scope limited to non-identifying data, and prohibitions against PHI and diagnostic inference. This adds significant context beyond the structured 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the consent condition, then the core action, then constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the prerequisite (consent), the action (organising vocabulary), and key constraints (no PHI, no diagnosis). With an output schema present, return-value details are not necessary. Slight ambiguity remains about the exact categories, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only transformation 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 only 20% (only consentConfirmed has a description). The tool description does not explain the purpose or relationship of the other parameters (impact, timing, bodyArea), nor does it clarify how they map to the 'neutral sensation, timing, pattern, and impact vocabulary' mentioned. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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+resource: 'organise only the user's non-identifying description into neutral sensation, timing, pattern, and impact vocabulary.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like build_health_timeline or render_appointment_brief, which focus on different healthcare activities.

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: it must be used after explicit consent, only for non-identifying descriptions, and must not accept PHI or infer a diagnosis. It implies exclusions but does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where a sibling would be preferred.

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