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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool searches only public educational data, explains Vitals Vault coverage, and explicitly excludes private lab results.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. The scope exclusion is stated efficiently and meaningfully.

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 search tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what input is used, what kind of data is returned, and what is expressly out of scope.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by specifying the search dimensions (name, alias, LOINC, keyword) and clarifying the data boundary, which enriches the meaning of the query parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it searches public educational biomarkers by name, alias, LOINC, or keyword. It also clarifies scope by noting that private lab results are outside the tool's data boundary, which helps distinguish it from other search/browse tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context by listing accepted search inputs and explicitly excluding private lab results. It does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope statement is enough to guide selection in most cases.

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