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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: the output is unassessed research guidance rather than validated treatment advice, and the caller is told to read the returned evidence and review objects before use. That is meaningful, non-obvious disclosure for a clinical-adjacent tool, though it says nothing about ordering or caching 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety caveat and a usage instruction. Nothing is redundant, though the caution 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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the shape of the return ('draft tiered responses and contraindications', plus 'evidence and review objects'), which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. The gap is the absence of any parameter-level detail, especially the severity input.

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 never mentions the parameters. The phrase 'for a Pattern' loosely implies that dysfunction_id identifies a pattern, but the severity enum (mild/moderate/severe) and its effect on the tiered output are entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource — returning draft tiered responses and contraindications for a Pattern — which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dysfunction, score_severity, and differential_diagnosis. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, but the scope is unambiguous.

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: this is the tool you call when you need candidate interventions for a pattern. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., needing a resolved dysfunction_id), and no routing to alternatives such as differential_diagnosis or score_severity.

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