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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a geographic restriction ('United States only') and the shape of the return (MeSH terms annotated with counts of doctors' profiles). No auth or rate-limit detail, but the added scope is meaningful.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the geographic constraint front-loaded before the purpose. The parenthetical about doctor profile counts is dense but earns its place by describing output.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers scope, intent and return shape adequately. Only the input format for 'text' remains slightly underspecified.

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 0% — the single 'text' parameter has no schema description — so the description must carry the burden. 'how a word is understood' implies text is a word/term to resolve, which partially compensates, but format expectations (e.g., single term vs. phrase, the 200-char limit) are left implicit.

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+resource: checking how a word maps to MeSH condition terms, procedure groups and specialties, with an indication of what it returns (doctor profile counts). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_doctors or list_specialties, though it never names a sibling 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?

Gives clear timing guidance — 'check how a word is understood before searching' — which tells the agent this is a pre-search disambiguation step. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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