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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine context beyond them by disclosing that numeric threshold matching is not implemented and that matching must be done caller-side, which is a real limitation the agent needs, though nothing is said about the rubric's structure or size.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the limitation immediately after. Minor redundancy in restating "[r]eturns the rubric," but no wasted padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what the rubric looks like, and with 0% parameter coverage it should explain both inputs; it does neither. For a two-required-parameter tool, this leaves the agent guessing about both inputs and the returned artifact.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only obliquely references dysfunction_id ("for a dysfunction") and says nothing about what observations should contain, their string format, or the 1-50 item bounds. The most-used parameter is effectively undocumented.

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?

It names a verb ("Return") and a resource ("severity rubric") and ties them to a dysfunction and observations, so the core intent is recoverable. However, "severity rubric" is abstract and the description never differentiates this from close siblings like get_dysfunction or differential_diagnosis, leaving the caller to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the twelve sibling tools. The clause about caller-side matching is a capability caveat rather than routing guidance, so the agent gets only a faint hint about intended use.

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