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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by decoding the HTTP contract (202 = processing, 200 = done) and naming the return shape and metrics. That is meaningful behavior disclosure beyond the annotation, though retry/backoff expectations and error behavior are unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the source tool, then the status-code semantics and return shape. Dense and free of filler, with only minor terseness in the final 'Returns { status, body }' line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming status, body, and the retrieval metrics. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter polling tool, missing only terminal error/timeout handling.

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 schema already documents the single parameter as a Health Gorilla RequestResult URL. The description restates the same origin (returned by start_patient360_query) without adding format or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (RequestResult query status) and explicitly ties the tool to the sibling that produces the URL, healthgorilla_start_patient360_query. An agent can distinguish it from the list_* and get_* siblings at a glance.

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?

Makes the usage context explicit: this is the follow-up to healthgorilla_start_patient360_query, and the input is the URL that tool returns. It does not state when-not-to-use or a recommended polling cadence, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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