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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Non-mutating computation' plus the engine endpoint (POST /explain). It adds minor value but discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what the computation requires beyond the structured schema.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by a safety note and endpoint. No filler or redundancy; slightly under-developed rather than verbose.

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, yet the description never explains what the explanation returns (supporting vs conflicting evidence format, weights, etc.), which matters for an explain tool. Combined with no sibling differentiation, it is adequate but leaves real gaps for a 7-parameter nested tool.

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 86%, so the schema already documents age, sex, evidence, target, dev_mode, and model_id in detail. The description only restates 'target condition' and 'collected evidence' at a high level without adding syntax or format meaning 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 (explain) and resource (which evidence supports/conflicts with a target condition), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling infermedica_rationale, which likely also explains reasoning around a condition.

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 phrase 'for the collected evidence' implies this runs after evidence has been gathered, giving implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites stated, and the overlapping infermedica_rationale sibling is never mentioned as an alternative.

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