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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It explicitly states the payment requirement ($0.25 USDC on Base, payment_tx), latency (<200ms), and output formats (JSON + TXT). This is significant behavioral context, though it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authorization beyond the payment mechanism.

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 information-dense but well-structured: purpose, metrics, formats, latency, payment. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler. While slightly long, every sentence delivers necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what data it includes, output formats, latency, and payment. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure or provide a decision tree for siblings, but given the output format is only specified as JSON/TXT, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a descriptive example. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the payment flow (e.g., 'pass tx hash as payment_tx') and the x_payment alternative, which goes beyond the schema's static 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 clearly states it produces a per-exercise biomechanical report for specific use cases (PT_outcome_measurement, medical_insurance_review), lists the key metrics, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely provide summaries or profiles. The verb 'get' with 'report' and the detailed content make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it ('for PT_outcome_measurement or medical_insurance_review' and 'per-exercise') and provides context on what it returns. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools like get_rehab_summary.

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