Care gap report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds behavioral context that the report is organizational, not clinical guidance. This is valuable and does not contradict 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 only two sentences, each adding distinct value: the first states the purpose, the second provides the organizational context. No wasted words.

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?

The description is brief but covers the core purpose and a behavioral disclaimer. Given the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining the user parameter.

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?

The description does not explain the single 'user' parameter, which is optional and has a default null. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The agent must infer that the parameter likely filters the report by user.

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 reports missing/stale data and unresolved follow-ups, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are mostly CRUD operations) by being an organizational report, not a clinical guidance tool.

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 indicates the tool is for organizational purposes, not clinical guidance, providing context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are all different in nature.

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