Health articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the scope disclaimer that output is general information rather than medical advice, and a preview of returned fields (title, link, publish date, summary) plus how text_chars changes the response. It does not discuss rate limits or result-ranking behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the return fields and the disclaimer/alternative routing. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant padding.

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 read-only search tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: intended use, output preview, disclaimer, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a modest but real point beyond the schema: that the default response is a summary and that text_chars is the switch that turns on full article text, linking the parameter to the output shape.

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 (Search) and resource (Doctoreto's health magazine, ~5,000 articles) plus the intended subject matter (condition, test, treatment). It also gestures at the sibling boundary by naming dt_search_doctors for the adjacent need, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('background on a condition, test or treatment'), explicit when-not ('General information only, not medical advice'), and names the alternative tool (dt_search_doctors) with the condition that selects it (for a diagnosis). Nothing 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.