Patient journey

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the composition of the return payload (timeline, last seen, next appointment, no-show counts), which is genuinely useful behavior context. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires any patient-scoped permissions, or how large a timeline can get.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first enumerates the payload, the second gives the usage trigger. Front-loaded with the concrete output list rather than restating the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values and does so well, enumerating the four components of the journey. The remaining gaps are the role of the 'since' filter and any error/empty-patient behavior, which are minor for a two-parameter read 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 coverage is only 50%: 'since' is documented in the schema, but patientId carries no description at all. The description never mentions the 'since' filter or its effect on the timeline, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 says exactly what is returned: 'One patient's encounters and appointments merged into a dated timeline, plus when they were last seen, their next upcoming appointment, and no-show/cancellation counts.' That is a much sharper picture than the vague name/title 'Patient journey'. It implies a difference from fhir_list_appointments (aggregated, per-patient), but never names the sibling to make that explicit.

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?

'Use this before contacting a patient so the agent knows their context' gives a concrete trigger scenario, which is more than most tools offer. However it names no alternative (e.g. fhir_list_appointments for a flat appointment list) and states no exclusions, so routing between siblings still requires inference.

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