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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations: every hop carries evidence_tier, a traditional-use association is not evidence of effectiveness, and the two vocabularies plus the mapping hop remain explicit and are never merged. This warns the agent about interpretation and data provenance.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the two modes, then adds an important interpretive caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the mapping behavior and the evidence_tier field. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the return shape, but the core call semantics are fully specified via schema and description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the tcm/modern vocabularies and the crosswalk step, which clarifies how the 'system' and 'symptom' parameters interact. This goes beyond simply restating the schema's field descriptions.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Herbs traditionally associated with a symptom in SymMap v2'. It then distinguishes two lookup paths (tcm vs modern), which identifies exactly what the tool does and how it differs from other symmap siblings like symmap_herb_symptoms or symmap_search.

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 gives clear context for when to use each system mode: use system:"tcm" for a TCM symptom name, and system:"modern" for a modern medical symptom that must be crosswalked to TCM. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the internal routing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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