search_medical_info

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden for behavioral context. The word 'search' and the phrase 'educational content' imply a read-only, informative operation, and the description adds topical scope. However, it does not mention what the tool returns, whether results are ranked, or any limitations, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences cover action, topic, and intended use with no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it a compact and effective description.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent sufficient information to know what to query and why to ask. The main missing piece is clarification of how this differs from sibling search/lookup tools, but the core invocation need is met.

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%: the single required 'query' parameter is already described with examples like 'asymmetry', 'melanoma', and 'sunscreen'. The tool description contributes little beyond reinforcing that the query is for skin-health education.

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 uses a distinct verb and resource ('Search the medical knowledge base') and specifies the topic ('skin health information', 'ABCDE criteria', 'prevention tips'). This clearly states the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly reference the equally similar sibling name like 'search_medical_concepts'.

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 says 'Use this to provide accurate educational content', which gives a clear situational context for invoking the tool. It does not name alternatives or include when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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