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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the backing endpoint ('Engine API: GET /symptoms'), which confirms a read operation, but discloses nothing about result size, pagination, or model-scoping behavior beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the endpoint tacked on at the end. No waste, though the trailing API note is marginal value.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present and annotations carry the safety profile. It falls short of complete because there is no guidance on result shape or the relationship to the many sibling list/get tools.

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 the nested age object, dev_mode, model_id, and enable_triage_5 are all fully documented in the schema. The description's only parameter reference, the age filter, repeats what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or semantics. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all symptoms in the Infermedica medical model') and scopes it with the age-filter note. The singular sibling get_symptom is implicitly distinguished by the plural/naming convention, but the description never names an alternative to differentiate 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?

Only a parenthetical hint ('optionally age-filtered') gestures at usage. There is no statement of when to call this versus infermedica_get_symptom for one symptom or infermedica_search_concepts for a query, and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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