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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only trait is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it does not advance the stream or consume a cue, and it mentions event count. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but given the read-only annotation, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary function and a clear behavioral caveat. It provides contextual detail ('federally-sourced, audience-safety-checked sequence') without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the operation scope, when to use it, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke it, especially with the output schema providing return structure.

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 one parameter, stream_id, well described as 'The stream_id returned by create_patient_stream.' The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, and it does not mention parameter syntax or formats. It earns the baseline 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 tool reads a stream's current state, current cued message, and event count. It is distinct from siblings like get_next_cued_message (which likely advances) and create_patient_stream (which creates). The explicit phrase 'does NOT advance the stream or consume a cue' further distinguishes its non-mutating behavior.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'between feedback turns to inspect where a patient is.' It also provides a when-not: 'does NOT advance the stream or consume a cue,' implying that advancing tools like get_next_cued_message should be used elsewhere. This is a clear usage directive.

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