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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds provenance ('per the Chinese Pharmacopoeia as curated by SymMap'), the evidence_tier-on-every-edge detail, and the traditional-vs-modern limitation, which are valuable behavioral and semantic disclosures beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences with all essential information front-loaded: purpose, data source, evidence caveat, and sibling routing. The second sentence is somewhat dense, which prevents a 5, but every clause contributes useful information.

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?

For a read-only tool with only two simple parameters, the description explains what is returned and the semantic scope, while the schema covers the parameters. It does not describe the output shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, and the herb parameter already documents 'any script or SMHB id' while limit has its range and default. The description adds context about the meaning of the results but no additional parameter-specific syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 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 opens with 'Traditional indications of a Traditional Chinese Medicine herb' and names the exact outputs: TCM symptoms (SMTS) and TCM syndromes (SMSY). It also distinguishes itself from symmap_symptom_herbs by explicitly separating TCM from modern medical symptoms.

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 clearly states that these are traditional-use records, not clinical evidence, and explicitly routes agents to symmap_symptom_herbs with system:'modern' for modern vocabulary. This provides both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use condition.

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