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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by enumerating the return content (meaning, causes, lab work-up, urgent evaluation) and explaining the graph-following behavior via slug arrays. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or other operational details, but for a read-only explainer the disclosed information is substantive.

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 only two sentences but packs in the tool's purpose, output sections, and a hint about how to traverse to related tools. Every sentence earns its place, with the most critical information front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns; it does this clearly by listing return components and the graph-following arrays. It does not explicitly cover the lang parameter's effect or error cases, but given the tool's relatively simple scope and the strong description, it is adequately complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema: slug and lang are already fully described in the input schema. The phrase 'by slug' reinforces the slug requirement but does not enhance the schema's existing description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('full triage explainer for a single symptom by slug'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like mediora__explain_marker and mediora__explain_condition by focusing on 'single symptom' and even mentions how its slug arrays link to those siblings.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to get a symptom's triage explainer by slug. It also implicitly guides the upstream LLM to follow related marker/condition slug arrays into sibling tools, which helps with context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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