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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Non-mutating computation' sentence is largely redundant. It does add useful context (NLP engine, POST /parse endpoint) but omits return-shape expectations, latency/rate behavior, and what happens to unmapped mentions. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then safety, then API detail. No filler or repetition; each sentence carries distinct 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 9-parameter tool with a nested age object and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the return format entirely implicit and never explains how optional params like context or model_id affect parsing. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

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 every parameter (age, sex, text, context, dev_mode, model_id, concept_types, include_tokens, correct_spelling) is already documented in-schema. The description only gestures at concept_types (symptoms/risk factors) and states, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3.

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 (extract/parse) and resource (clinical mentions of symptoms/risk factors and their states from free text), plus the mapping to Infermedica evidence ids. This lets an agent distinguish it from the get_*/list_* lookups, though it never names the closest sibling (search_concepts) to sharpen the boundary.

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 implies the tool is for parsing free-text complaints but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against infermedica_search_concepts or infermedica_suggest. No prerequisites (e.g., need for patient age/sex context) are stated.

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