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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the output deliberately excludes diagnoses and treatment recommendations, the clinician's instructions override anything produced, and the call is free with no signer or signing step. It doesn't describe what the returned brief looks like, but an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only/private framing and the core organizing function. Every sentence carries distinct information; only the 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign' phrasing is slightly compressed and awkward, but it still conveys a real constraint.

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 four-parameter, single-required-field tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope, the clinical-advice boundary, and cost/signing expectations. The one remaining gap is the relationship to any downstream step (what the agent does with the brief), which is minor given the output schema.

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?

The description names all four inputs (reason, facts, records, questions), which mirrors the schema's own property descriptions rather than extending them. With 75% schema description coverage the schema already carries the semantics, including the identifier-omission guidance, so this is the baseline case.

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 and artifact: it prepares a private visit brief by organizing reason, facts, records and questions. It also draws a clear boundary (no diagnoses or treatment recommendations), so an agent can tell it produces a factual summary rather than clinical advice. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but none of the listed siblings competes in this domain.

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?

Usage is implied by 'visit preparation' and reinforced by the exclusion of diagnoses/treatment recommendations, which signals the appropriate context. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no mention of a follow-up submit/action step, and no guidance on when a different tool would be a better fit.

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