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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: rule-based triage before the model, emergency flagging with the country's number, doses from fixed tables only, and refusal rather than guessing when sources do not support an answer.

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 purposeful paragraphs: the first front-loads scope, sources, and safety guarantees; the second provides routing rules. Every sentence earns its place and an agent can decide whether to call it without reading further.

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 annotations covering safety traits and an output schema presumably handling return values, the description is complete for correct selection and invocation. It covers source policy, language scope, emergency handling, dose handling, refusal behavior, and sibling alternatives.

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%, and the schema already documents question, lang, and country with examples, enum, and purpose. The description restates language support and the country's role in emergency numbers but adds no new syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (answers a parent's paediatric question from published guidelines) and immediately names the supported source families and languages. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing dose, vaccination, and danger-screening questions elsewhere.

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 an explicit trigger: use when a parent asks a free-form question about a baby's or child's health. It then names three sibling alternatives with their selecting conditions, including that paediatric_warning_sign_check is faster and uses no AI.

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