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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still layers on information they don't carry: it never re-reads the photo, never calls the model, consumes no daily allowance, and returns no contact details. Quota-cost and privacy behavior are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 when-to-use case is front-loaded, followed by cost and privacy guarantees, then exclusions. The exclusion list is longer than strictly needed, but each clause blocks a realistic misuse, so it earns most of its length.

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 single-id read tool with full annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers usage, cost, privacy, and the return shape at a high level. There is no gap an agent would need to fill before calling it.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the UUID format and its source. The description restates the id's provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — reading back a saved triage profile keyed by diagnosis_id — and explicitly distinguishes itself from assess_property_photo. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

It gives the triggering condition (you already have a diagnosis_id from assess_property_photo or a fixragent.com/c/<id> link), names the alternative for new assessments, and enumerates what the tool is NOT for (person/address/property/account lookup). Nothing is left to inference.

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