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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope beyond annotations with 'Reference data only — no patient data,' and the output schema covers return details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 one front-loaded sentence plus a short scope sentence. It states the action, the resource, the output contents, and the key restriction with no filler or 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?

For a parameterless, read-only reference-list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it says what is returned, how it is organized, and that patient data is excluded. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description's mention of units, reference ranges, and pillar grouping refers to the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless list tool.

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: 'List the biomarkers PRISM scores, with units and reference ranges, grouped by clinical pillar.' The closing contrast, 'Reference data only — no patient data,' clearly separates this from the patient-facing sibling tools even though they are not named.

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 gives a clear usage boundary by stating this is reference data only and not patient data, so an agent can infer when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for patient-data analyses, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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