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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by citing the underlying GET /info endpoint, confirming a read-only, side-effect-free call. It adds no auth requirements, rate-limit behavior, or caching/freshness semantics for the returned metadata, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the resource and the metadata returned, plus the endpoint reference. Zero filler; 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?

For a read-only metadata lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could note that the result is scoped to the currently configured model unless model_id is supplied, but nothing critical is missing.

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 age, dev_mode, and model_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'the current model' but never explains that model_id overrides which model's info is returned, adding no real meaning beyond the structured fields; 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata about the current Infermedica medical model') and enumerates the returned fields (version, last update, concept counts), which clearly separates it from the concept/diagnosis siblings. It does not explicitly say how it differs from other 'get_' siblings, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as infermedica_get_condition or the list_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The word 'current' hints at a version-check use case, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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