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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned field set and the underlying IntakeQ endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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 covering action, scope and payload, plus a short endpoint reference. No 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each record contains (code, description, start/end date, source treatment note), which is genuinely helpful for an agent. Minor gaps remain around result volume and ordering, but the core is complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single client_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'for one client' reinforces cardinality but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (diagnoses) scoped to one client, and enumerates the returned fields. No sibling tool covers diagnoses, so the scope is unambiguous against tools like intakeq_get_note or intakeq_list_clients.

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 implied by the narrow scope ('for one client'), and there are no genuinely competing siblings to route away from. However, it never states when this is appropriate or what prerequisite (a valid client_id) is required, so guidance remains implicit.

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