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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: provenance (OpenRemedies MONDO hierarchy) and the important caveat that relationships are structural, not clinical assertions — a semantic constraint an agent would otherwise misread. It omits any notion of result size or pagination.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the caveat, then provenance. Minor redundancy in 'condition concepts for a condition' but nothing that wastes an agent's attention.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so adequately (relationship types and labels). It could go further on result volume or ordering, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100% with the single condition_id parameter already documented as coming from resolve_condition. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (broader, subtype, and sibling condition concepts) and the shape of the return (each labeled by structural relationship). It does not name a sibling tool to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 only implied: you get hierarchy relationships for a condition. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over, say, get_condition_options or resolve_condition, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated in the description (the parameter's 'from resolve_condition' hint lives only in the schema).

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