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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: no order or charge is created, a human replies within one business day, patient-related requests are rejected, dry_run sends nothing, and idempotent retries return the original request. This complements the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: the core outcome is front-loaded, followed by the no-patient-information rule, consent requirement, validation mode, and idempotency semantics. The structure is logical and dense without redundancy.

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 14-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens after the request, what is not sent, how to validate first, and how to avoid duplicates. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and safely.

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, but the description adds meaningful parameter context: confirmed_by_user must only be true after explicit user consent, dry_run validates without sending, and notes are limited to general case terms. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 action and resource: it sends Zicron a request to prepare a medical chronology. It also sharply distinguishes this from an order by clarifying it is a 'contact request only: nothing is ordered or charged,' which separates it from sibling tools like quote_chronology.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: call only after the user asks and agrees to email, set confirmed_by_user=true, use dry_run=true to validate without sending, and never include patient information. It also warns that patient-looking requests are rejected, giving clear when-to and when-not-to-call conditions.

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