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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning the consent requirement, the non-identifying nature of the data, and the PHI restriction, which are behavioral preconditions not captured in structured metadata.

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: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second states a constraint. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary concise structure.

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 tool is straightforward as a rendering step, and the description links its input to prepare_appointment_brief, giving the agent a path to understand the parameters via the sibling tool. It also enforces consent via the schema. However, it does not describe the card structure or what happens if prerequisites are unmet, leaving some minor gaps given the 8-parameter schema and presence of an output schema.

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 13% (only consentConfirmed has a description), yet the tool description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It only hints that they are the output of prepare_appointment_brief, but without specific meanings for mainGoal, changes, impacts, etc., the agent cannot correctly populate these fields. 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 clearly states the tool's function: rendering the non-identifying output of prepare_appointment_brief as an accessible card. It uses a specific verb ('render') and names the exact resource and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_health_timeline or reflect_on_flare.

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 explicitly instructs to call prepare_appointment_brief first, setting a clear prerequisite. It also specifies a constraint ('do not add PHI') and a precondition ('After the user's existing consent'), giving concrete guidance on when and how to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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