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 a useful API detail ('POST /explain'). However it discloses nothing about return format, latency, or auth beyond what the annotation implies, so it adds only modest value over the structured fields.

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 core purpose, followed by the safety trait and API endpoint. Little waste; the 'POST /explain' clause is marginally agent-relevant but not distracting.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description only loosely sketches the output ('which evidence supports or conflicts'). The schema carries parameter burdens well, but return-value shape is left thin, so it is adequate rather than 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 86% (high), so parameters like target, evidence, sex, age, and dev_mode are already well documented in the schema (e.g. 'c_49', 's_21'). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond that 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?

States a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('which evidence supports or conflicts with a given target condition'), so the agent knows exactly what computation is performed. It is clear but does not differentiate from the close sibling infermedica_rationale, which likely offers overlapping evidence-based explanation.

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 says the explanation is 'for the collected evidence' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-selection guidance. With siblings like infermedica_diagnosis and infermedica_rationale, the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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