Returns the clinic's remote follow-up schedule and the process for handling a suspected problem after a patient has returned home.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the content returned, but it doesn't contradict annotations. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and clearly specifies the content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with no parameters, full annotations, and an output schema. The description accurately covers the tool's purpose without missing critical information, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter formats. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.
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 clearly states the tool returns two specific things: the clinic's remote follow-up schedule and the process for handling a suspected problem after a patient returns home. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_visit_information and get_clinic_profile by specifying the aftercare context.
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 implies usage for post-discharge scenarios, which is clear from the phrase 'after a patient has returned home.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to determine when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each get_* tool targets a distinct information domain (clinic profile, doctor profile, prices, reviews, etc.), but the generic 'fetch' overlaps with the specific getters, creating minor ambiguity.
Most tools follow a get_* pattern, but 'fetch' breaks the convention, and 'search' and 'request_callback' deviate from the get_ prefix, resulting in an inconsistent style.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a patient services server, covering information retrieval and contact actions without bloat.
The server covers the core patient journey: researching treatments, clinic info, prices, reviews, visit logistics, and initiating contact via callback or WhatsApp. A potential gap is direct appointment booking, but the contact mechanisms compensate.
