Add encounter

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating, non-idempotent operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., side effects, required permissions, duplicate handling) beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentence with 17 words, making it concise. However, it is too sparse for the complexity of the tool; a slightly longer description with parameter hints would be more helpful without being verbose.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, many sibling tools, and an output schema that exists but is not detailed, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required parameter (encounter_type) or provide context about optional fields and return values.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., plan, user, notes, encounter_type), except implicitly through examples. This is a severe deficiency for a tool with many optional fields.

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 verb 'Store' and the resource 'visit/encounter', with concrete examples (annual physical, specialist visit, ER visit, etc.), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_allergy or add_medication.

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?

The description implies usage for storing healthcare encounters but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, which is a gap given the many sibling tools.

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