cluster_adverse_events

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation through 'Identify and group' and describes the output structure. It lacks explicit statements on safety (e.g., non-destructive) or side effects, which would raise the score. The parameter behavior (omission => all protocols) is well explained.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second details output and parameter behavior, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and an existing output schema (not shown but referenced), the description is nearly complete. It explains output and parameter behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that it operates on existing mentions without modification.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to the only parameter (`document_ids`) by explaining that omission clusters across all protocols. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it could clarify what constitutes a document ID.

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 groups adverse-event mentions by body system, with a specific verb ('Identify and group') and resource ('adverse-event mentions'). It distinguishes from siblings like `extract_entities` and `list_documents` by focusing on clustering adverse events across protocols.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (across one or more protocols) and behavior for the optional parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like `summarize_protocol`, though the sibling names make the distinction inferable.

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