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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered without the description. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /risk_factors), which is mildly useful for debugging, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, rate limits, or how the optional filters behave.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint line is arguably redundant for an agent but not wasteful enough to hurt.

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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, the description's 'list all' framing doesn't acknowledge the optional age/model_id filtering that the schema exposes, leaving the filtering behavior slightly unclear.

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, including the nested age.unit enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (risk factors) and scopes it to the Infermedica medical model. The word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular infermedica_get_risk_factor sibling, though that sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List all risk factors' suggests bulk enumeration rather than single-concept lookup, which indirectly contrasts with get_risk_factor. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer search_concepts or the singular getter.

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