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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the sample lacks numeric values. However, it does not describe the actual response format, potential errors, or other behavioral aspects beyond the absence of numbers, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: the free nature, the structural output, the upgrade path, and a concrete usage example. No redundant or wasted text.

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 simple sample tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (structure, categories, no numbers), the cost difference, and an example. It does not describe the exact response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the pointer to the full version, 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter with a description and default value. The description adds value by providing an example value, which helps the agent understand what a valid case_path looks like beyond 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 states the tool shows the structure and metric categories of a clinical summary without numeric values, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from get_rehab_summary by noting that the summary provides full numeric data.

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 explicitly recommends using get_rehab_summary for full numeric data and provides a concrete example case_path for trying the sample. It implies when not to use this tool (when numeric values are needed) but does not exhaustively cover all sibling tools.

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