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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description is not burdened with that. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields: a hard cap of 5 matches, what each match contains (page URL, last-checked date, urgency panels ordered SOR/112 then doctor), and a 'not medical advice' disclaimer. It stops short of describing ranking 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then return shape, then the disclaimer. No filler and every 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values and ordering of urgency panels, which is the main completeness requirement. Minor gaps remain around no-match behavior and ranking of the up-to-5 results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the query must be in Polish and clarifies that age_months is optional and should be supplied when known, which reinforces semantics the schema states tersely.

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 with scope: searching checked answers about normal development for children aged 0–36 months. The Polish-content/Polish-care-path constraint is a useful qualifier. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_answer, but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is strongly implied by 'returns up to 5 matches'.

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?

Gives clear input context ('pass the parent's question or keywords in Polish and, if known, the child's age'), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never says when to use this versus get_answer, nor any exclusion (e.g. for ages over 36 months or non-Polish questions). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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