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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: privacy scope, the boundary against generating diagnoses or treatment recommendations, and the clinician's authority.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavioral scope. There is no filler, and each sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The definition is sufficient for calling the tool, though it lacks routing guidance relative to siblings.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the description only names the four input categories (reason, facts, records, questions). It adds little format or handling meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for facts, records, and reasonForVisit.

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 action and resource: prepare a private, read-only visit brief from reason, facts, records, and questions. It distinguishes its scope from diagnostic or treatment tools, but does not name sibling alternatives such as understand_need or track_followup.

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?

Implies when to use it (private visit preparation) and explicitly excludes turning inputs into diagnoses or treatment recommendations, with clinician instructions remaining authoritative. It does not state when to choose this over sibling prepare_* tools or other related tools.

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