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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Bulk support: accepts paciente_ids for batched execution' and implies the tool is for reads. However, the multi-action listing conflicts with the tool's actual behavior (likely only health_programs). Despite that, the additional context is helpful.

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 verbose and attempts to enumerate multiple sub-actions, making it longer than needed. The structure is messy with a list of actions and a flat declaration. It could be much shorter and clearer by focusing solely on the health_programs action.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex usage pattern, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the actual input parameters or return values. The mention of non-existent filter parameters adds to the incompleteness.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes filter parameters for health_programs (program_id, nome_programa, etc.) but these do not match the schema, which only has 'data', 'account', 'paciente_id', and 'paciente_ids'. This mismatch confuses meaning. The bulk support mention is the only alignment.

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 starts with 'Supporting patient data reads in Feegow' and lists multiple actions (list_sources, list_dependents, list_privates, health_programs, exam_requests), but then states '[Flattened action: health_programs]' and the tool name specifically mentions health_programs. This creates confusion about whether the tool performs all those actions or just health_programs. The purpose is vague and not clearly defined.

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?

Only one alternative is mentioned: 'For uploading a file to a patient record use feegow_patient_support_write.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its immediate siblings like feegow_patient_support_list_sources, which the description misleadingly includes as part of this tool. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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