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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds support for HTML and batch updates but does not clarify whether the update replaces or appends, nor mention authentication or side effects. Partial value beyond 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?

Two sentences covering purpose, return value, and bulk capability. No extraneous information. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 explains success response and bulk capability but omits parameter details, required fields, and error handling. Given no output schema, more context is needed for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only mentions 'text' and 'patient_ids' (implicitly), leaving 'patient_id' and 'account' undocumented. No details on formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 the action ('update'), the resource ('clinical record/prontuario'), and adds supporting details (HTML support, bulk execution, success code 204). The tool name and sibling 'dietbox_prontuario' imply this is the write counterpart, making purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions bulk support but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its read counterpart (dietbox_prontuario) or other write tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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