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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (slug + short name) and the fact that this is a bounded catalog enumeration rather than a filtered query. It does not mention language behavior, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and return shape, the second routes to the correct sibling. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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 one-parameter catalog lister with no output schema, the description supplies everything required: what is listed, what comes back, and when to prefer the richer sibling. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the language option, so no material gap remains.

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 100% and the single lang parameter is fully documented with an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is the baseline. The description never mentions that output is language-selectable, adding no meaning over the schema, though nothing is misleading.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ("List every patient-side symptom in the Mediora catalog") and grounds it with concrete examples (fatigue, joint pain, headache). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mediora__explain_symptom, so an agent can choose between the two without opening a 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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly (mediora__explain_symptom) and states the condition that selects it: when the agent needs the full triage-oriented explainer with lab work-up. The implicit inverse — use this tool for a plain enumeration — is also clear from the first sentence.

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