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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely new context: an authentication prerequisite ('Requires signing in with a Deer account') and the emergency-escalation caveat. It still doesn't say whether duplicate reports are possible or what happens after submission, but it goes beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: auth prerequisite, action, and safety exclusion. Front-loading the sign-in requirement is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no indication of what the agent gets back or what happens to the report after submission (confirmation, care-team follow-up, status). For a write action tied to a health workflow, that leaves an agent unable to tell the user what to expect next.

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 only 50%: profile_id and started_on carry format hints, but severity's mild/moderate/severe enum is unexplained and the free-text description field (2000 char cap) has no guidance on what to include. The description's mention of 'severe' hints at severity semantics but does not define the three levels or what makes a report actionable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a side effect to the customer's care team on one profile.' It clearly differs from generic siblings like get_help or log_weight. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_side_effect, which is the nearest ambiguity risk.

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?

It gives real context on when to use it and a critical exclusion: 'this report is not an emergency channel,' with an instruction to direct severe cases to 911/emergency care. It never names the alternative resolve_side_effect or explains report-vs-resolve, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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