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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing that diagnose=true is a live-health probe and therefore slower, and by framing the output as 'exact parameter schemas', which sets expectations about the response shape.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and dense, but the trailing 'Examples: biomedmcp://guide. e.g. {}' is a dangling, unclear fragment that costs space without conveying actionable meaning. Trimming or clarifying that tail would make the definition notably stronger.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a discovery tool the description leaves ambiguous what 'entity sections' and 'dossier workflows' actually are, and the cryptic example string adds confusion rather than orientation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 33%: only diagnose carries a schema description, while entity (enum via $ref) and source (string, 1-128 chars) are undocumented. The description partially compensates by saying source/entity narrow the listing, but it never explains what values source accepts or that entity must be one of the fixed enum set, so the gap is only half filled.

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 uses a concrete verb (List) with a specific set of resources: enabled sources, entity sections, dossier workflows, source operations, plus exact parameter schemas. This clearly marks it as a self-describing discovery tool, distinct in kind from query siblings like query_source or search_records, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

It gives useful narrowing guidance ('Narrow with source or entity') and explains diagnose=true, but it never states the primary when-to-use case (call this before other tools to discover schemas) nor any when-not-to-use condition. The 'Examples: biomedmcp://guide. e.g. {}' fragment is cryptic and does not function as usage guidance.

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