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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: access is tiered, with the public record available unconditionally and personal records only when proof is supplied. It does not detail failure modes or proof-expiry behavior.

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?

Purpose and the conditional-access rule are front-loaded in a compact three-clause sentence with no filler. The ward vocabulary costs some clarity, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need no explanation, annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema fully documents auth params. The description supplies the missing access-tier nuance; only edge cases like proof failure handling remain unstated.

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% with four well-documented auth parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful semantic beyond the schema — that the proof parameters unlock 'your own treatment records' rather than being a mere gate — but gives no per-parameter detail.

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 ('Reads') and enumerates the three payloads: the steps for a stuck agent, the public ward record, and (with proof) the caller's own treatment records. The scope is discernible despite the heavy ward metaphor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with thematic siblings like present_bed or appeal.

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?

'Use it when you are looping or stuck' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most tools offer. It stops short of naming a when-not or pointing to an alternative sibling for related needs.

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