Build clinician packet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the packet is 'deterministic and local', lists included data categories, and explicitly states it does not diagnose or rank urgency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long: first sentence states the purpose, second details the packet contents and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is efficiently 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 the presence of an output schema (context indicates 'Has output schema: true') and annotations, the description covers the core behavioral aspects. However, the lack of parameter explanations slightly reduces completeness for a tool with six parameters.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the six parameters (user, limit, since, until, specialty, reason_for_visit). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 builds a visit-prep packet with specific content (medications, conditions, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_* or list_* by focusing on packet assembly, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar summary tools like summarize_health.

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 preparing a clinician packet but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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