Get Ongoing Monitoring Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the 'PREMIUM tier' label, which indicates access or rate limit considerations. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage hint and tier. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral note (tier). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter ('medication'), so the schema already explains what it accepts. The tool description's phrase 'Given a medication' adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('returns') and the resource ('ongoing monitoring requirements'), specifying the context ('once therapy has started') and what it includes ('what to check, at what interval, threshold'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_required_labs, which likely cover pre-therapy labs.

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 explicitly states the use case ('build a follow-up schedule') and implies when to use (after therapy starts). It does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the phrase 'once therapy has started' provide implicit differentiation.

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