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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Non-mutating computation' while also disclosing the return shape (next question, ranked conditions, should_stop flag) and the underlying call (POST /diagnosis). With no output schema, describing the response contents adds real value. It stops short of covering auth/rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return contents in one dense sentence, followed by two short clarifying fragments. Minimal waste, though 'Non-mutating computation' partly restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and safety reasonably well, and the rich schema descriptions handle parameter details. It lacks explicit sibling routing, which would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including nested age/evidence objects and extras) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely references 'collected evidence' and adds no format or header details beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run the diagnostic engine over the collected evidence') and enumerates what it returns (next question, ranked conditions with probabilities, should_stop flag). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like infermedica_suggest, infermedica_rationale, and infermedica_triage, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Over the collected evidence' implies the tool is called iteratively during a diagnostic session, giving implied usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over triage/suggest/rationale, no mention of prerequisites like required evidence, and no exclusions.

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