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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination is stable, results are public-only, and diagnosis/private lab results are excluded. This gives an agent important expectations about data scope and response behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core behavior, pagination trait, filters, and exclusions without any redundancy. Every clause earns its place and no boilerplate is present.

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 browse operation with a rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the collection's scope, pagination stability, filter options, and data exclusions, so an agent has enough context to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults, constraints, and enum values. The description adds only a light mapping of 'category' and 'sex-applicability filters' to parameters, which is useful but not a major addition over the schema.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('public What We Test collection'), and adds key differentiators: stable cursor pagination, optional filters, and the exclusion of diagnosis/private lab results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_biomarkers or search_biomarkers even without naming them.

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: this is for browsing the public collection with pagination and filters, and it is not for private or diagnostic data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the 'public collection' and 'excludes... private lab results' framing makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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