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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that title and patient_id are merged automatically before POST, mentions bulk execution support, and warns about API error (400) if title is missing. No annotation contradictions; it adds valuable behavioral context.

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 concise, well-structured with bullet points and clear separations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers required fields, bulk support, and error behavior. It lacks explanation of return values or response format, but for a write tool with no output schema, this is acceptable and fairly 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 0%, but the description explains the key parameters: title (required), patient_id (required), data (JSON string), and patient_ids (bulk). However, the 'account' parameter is not explained, slightly reducing completeness.

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 creates a new supplement/herbal medicine prescription in Dietbox. It distinguishes from meal plans by explicitly directing to dietbox_meal_plan, providing clear purpose and resource identification.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for prescriptions) vs alternatives (meal plans use dietbox_meal_plan). It mentions required fields and bulk support via patient_ids, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria.

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