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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the function (returns markers + analysis), authentication method (Bearer token forwarded), and proxied endpoint. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state idempotency or error conditions (e.g., unauthorized access, missing test ID). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides usage context and authentication details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (markers + AI analysis) and the prerequisite call (get_patient_history). It lacks information on response format or potential error responses, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `test_id` is 'returned by mediora__get_patient_history as `id`' and that `bearer_token` is a 'Mediora patient JWT (see mediora__whoami)'. This contextual guidance goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns 'persisted markers + AI analysis' for a specific medical test, listing the exact components (Summary, KeyFindings, Recommendations, DetailedExplanation). It identifies the resource ('medical-test') and scope ('authenticated patient owns'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'explain_marker' or 'longitudinal_trend'.

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 explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use after mediora__get_patient_history surfaces a test id the user wants to discuss.' It also specifies authentication requirements (patient-scope JWT). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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