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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: returns confirmation and estimated response time, urgent messages are prioritized, and authentication is required. This complements the annotation hints, though it does not explain the unusual destructiveHint=true, but no contradiction exists.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, outputs/priority behavior, and authentication. No fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema present and good annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return info, priority logic, and auth. It does not detail edge cases or side effects, but those are not essential for a message-sending tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions urgent keywords but not as a parameter syntax explanation.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Send' and identifies the resource ('message to the patient's healthcare provider'), making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on provider messaging, and adds useful outcomes (confirmation, response time).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like provider_respond or portal_support. The description implies use for patient-provider communication but does not state exclusions or when to prefer another tool.

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