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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: HTTP 202 means still processing, 200 means done, plus the retrieval metric names returned on completion. It does not mention polling interval, timeout, or URL expiry, which would matter for a poll loop.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the workflow link, then the status-code semantics; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the { status, body } return shape and the metrics present on completion, which is what an agent needs to branch on. Missing only operational guidance such as how often or how long to keep polling.

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 the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates its origin (returned by the start query) but adds no format or usage nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Poll') plus the resource (a RequestResult URL), and names the producer tool healthgorilla_start_patient360_query so it is clearly distinguished from the start/query siblings.

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?

Explains the workflow context: use it against the URL returned by healthgorilla_start_patient360_query, and gives the decision rule for interpreting 202 vs 200. It does not state a retry cadence or when to give up polling, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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