Care briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this is an aggregating call that synthesizes multiple data sources and even explains the reasoning behind insights ('a new symptom after a dose change, with evidence'), which tells the agent to expect derived conclusions rather than raw data.

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, front-loaded with the framing question and then the two example utterances that make the trigger obvious. The section enumeration is long but each item earns its place by delimiting scope; the rhetorical opening question is the only soft filler.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be documented, yet the description still gives a strong preview of the briefing's contents. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it is missing; only the parameter behavior and any freshness/latency expectation are unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning to 'period' or 'person' – it never clarifies the default window or the multi-recipient case, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete resource (a caregiver briefing) and enumerates exactly what it composes: status, adherence, mood/pain/sleep trends, correlated insights, alerts, appointments, messages. That enumeration distinguishes it from narrow siblings like list_alerts, recent_activity and get_today, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 supplies concrete trigger utterances ('how's Mom doing?', 'anything I should know?'), which clearly establishes the open-ended check-in context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or routing to alternatives such as list_alerts for a focused alert review.

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