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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only ('returns current status without starting a new query') and provides endpoint details (POST /medical/v1/document/query). This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, clarifying no side effects and what counts are returned (download + FHIR conversion).

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly written with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, the second adds operational detail. It is well front-loaded and concise.

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 status-checking tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate information: it checks progress of a document query and returns counts. It could be more complete by detailing the structure of the status response, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's utility.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for patientId. The description adds minimal extra meaning by emphasizing 'only patientId (no facilityId)', which reinforces the parameter but does not significantly expand on schema information.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Check the progress/status of a Patient's document query'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource (status of document query), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_document_query or list_documents.

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 provides explicit context: it returns status without starting a new query, and requires only patientId (no facilityId). This indirectly tells the agent when to use it (to check an existing query) and when not to (to start a new one). However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for starting queries.

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