get_patient_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation (aggregating history and events), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but not explicit.

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 phrase with no structure. It is concise but under-specifies the tool, missing critical details. It could be expanded to include parameter hints or result expectations without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining the tool's output and behavior. It only gives a vague summary, leaving the agent uncertain about what 'overview' entails. The sibling list helps but is not leveraged.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or usage of 'patient_id' and 'clinic_id' beyond their names and types. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill these parameters correctly.

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 it provides an 'aggregated patient history and recent events,' which clearly indicates a read operation for a patient overview. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_soap_history (specific clinical notes) or query_problem_list (problem list), but lacks specificity on what is aggregated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_clinical_notes or get_soap_history. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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