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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond these: the data is 'unreviewed' and 'context-only', and it does not interpret results or provide medical advice. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's limitations without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a critical disclaimer. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides no parameter guidance, no return format explanation, and no details on how the tool behaves beyond 'returns comparisons'. The safety annotations help, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke the tool with the right inputs and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. However, the description does not mention age, sex, unit, limit, marker, or source at all. It only offers the vague phrase 'range source comparisons', which does not clarify what each parameter means or how they interact. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('Return') and a specific resource ('range source comparisons') with meaningful qualifiers ('unreviewed, context-only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_locations and search_tests, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for context-only lookups and explicitly warns against using it for interpretation or medical advice, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. The exclusion of medical advice is a helpful boundary, but no direct comparison to alternatives is given.

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