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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'determines' a class, without mentioning how it handles missing information, edge cases, or any limitations. The agent is left uninformed about calculation assumptions or error 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 that efficiently states the purpose and output. No redundant words or filler.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe the return value format, the decision logic, or what the parameters represent functionally, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 only 11%, with 9 boolean parameters. The description merely refers to 'device characteristics' without explaining how each parameter influences the classification. The agent lacks guidance on what each boolean means for the classification logic.

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's purpose: MDR Annex VIII medical device risk classification, determining class I/IIa/IIb/III. It includes a specific regulatory reference and output, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other regulatory topics.

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 usage context: use when needing MDR device classification. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the clear regulatory scope differentiates it from siblings, providing adequate situational guidance.

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