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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful extra context: empty list on no match, guides written only from published guidelines with named organisations behind each clinical sentence, and eight supported languages. It does not discuss ranking confidence or fallback behaviour when a weak match exists, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behaviour and well ordered, but slightly padded: the 'hand a parent something to read rather than a paragraph' framing and the repeated mention of eight languages (already an enum) consume words without adding selection signal.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarises them harmlessly. It covers usage, routing, languages, and empty-result behaviour, leaving only ranking/confidence semantics unstated, which is a minor gap for a lookup tool.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the short-noun-phrase guidance and the enum for lang. The description only restates 'in the requested language', adding nothing the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (finds), resource (PediBot's published parent guides), scope (up to five, best match first) and return shape (title, topic, link). It also distinguishes itself from paediatric_question_with_sources by naming the alternative, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants something to read or share on a topic') and an explicit alternative for the contrasting case ('To answer a specific question use paediatric_question_with_sources'). Both the trigger and the exclusion are stated.

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