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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses input restrictions (no diagnoses, chat history, scores, or model-authored evidence) and a client-dependent rendering fallback for text clients. It does not discuss failure modes or ID validation behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then input rules, then related tools, then a client fallback. Each sentence carries information, though the last two could be tightened.

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 not be described, and the description covers the remaining agent-facing needs: input provenance, count bounds, rejection of non-corpus inputs, and text-client behavior. A brief note on what happens with invalid or duplicate IDs would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add two useful facts — IDs must be canonical and obtained from this server, and the count is one to five — but leaves the ID format, validation rules, and duplicate handling to the schema's constraints.

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 and resource ('Open the visual review board') plus the scope of the input ('one to five inspected Psychopathia research candidates'), and explicitly bounds what it retrieves ('Retrieves corpus entries only'). It does not, however, clearly differentiate itself from sibling 'review_stats' or other review-oriented tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Useful after inspecting differential_diagnosis and get_dysfunction results' gives concrete sequencing guidance and names the tools whose output feeds it. It also states a negative condition (does not accept diagnoses, conversation history, scores, or model-authored evidence), but gives no explicit when-not-to-use versus an alternative tool.

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