Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search-pubmedC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format results return. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the basic function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a search tool with 2 parameters (one required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic functional statement without any context about how to use it effectively, what to expect in return, or behavioral considerations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'query' should contain (search terms, filters, syntax) or what 'maxResults' represents (default value, range constraints, pagination). The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('PubMed for medical literature'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from most sibling tools which focus on patient data retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search-trials' which is another search tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'search-trials' or other information retrieval tools, nor any context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

• get_appointmentsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes cancelled appointments, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief, as it could benefit from slightly more context to be fully helpful without becoming verbose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like return format (e.g., list of appointments with details), error handling, or authentication needs, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a healthcare context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description mentions 'patient's Appointments' which implies the 'patientId' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional date parameters or their relationship to filtering. With 67% schema description coverage (date parameters described, patientId not), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for moderate coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get patient's Appointments' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('patient's Appointments'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_patient_encounters' or specify what type of appointments (e.g., medical, scheduled visits), leaving it somewhat vague in context.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a patient ID), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_patient_encounters', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• get_patient_careplansC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get care plans for a patient', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns a list or single object). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it does not contradict any annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get care plans for a patient' is front-loaded and directly states the action. It avoids redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not address return values (e.g., format, structure), error cases, or behavioral nuances like filtering logic. With schema coverage at 40% and no annotations to fill gaps, the description leaves critical context missing for effective tool invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 40% (only 'dateFrom' and 'dateTo' have descriptions), leaving 3 parameters undocumented. The description 'Get care plans for a patient' adds minimal semantic value—it hints at 'patientId' as a key input but does not explain 'category', 'status', or the date parameters beyond what the schema provides. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get care plans for a patient' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('care plans for a patient'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'care plans' entail (e.g., treatment plans, goals) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_patient_conditions' or 'get_patient_procedures', which might overlap in healthcare contexts. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid patient ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_patient_encounters' or 'get_patient_observations'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

• get-drug-infoC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get Drug details') but doesn't describe what 'details' include, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (a lookup tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'genericName' as the lookup method but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid generic name (e.g., format, examples, case sensitivity) or what happens if the name isn't found. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Drug details'), specifying the lookup method ('by a generic name'). It distinguishes from siblings like search-pubmed or search-trials by focusing on drug details retrieval rather than broader searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_medications_history or get_patient_medications, which might also involve drug information.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid generic name), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like search-pubmed for broader drug research. Usage is implied only by the name and description, lacking explicit context.

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

• get_medications_historyC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get patient's medication history including changes', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the history includes (e.g., timestamps, dosages). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (a medical data tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return format, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'medication history including changes', which hints at the 'includeDiscontinued' parameter (suggesting it controls whether to show stopped medications), but doesn't explain 'patientId' or provide details on parameter usage. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'patient's medication history including changes', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_patient_medications' (which might not include historical changes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_patient_conditions' or 'get_patient_allergies', which could be similar in structure but for different data types.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid patient ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_patient_medications' (which might fetch current medications only). This leaves the agent without clear context for selection.

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

• get_patient_medicationsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely accesses sensitive medical data.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of healthcare data, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and output expectations, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain 'patientId' (e.g., format or source) or 'status' (e.g., filtering by medication state), leaving both parameters semantically unclear beyond the schema's basic structure.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('medication orders for a patient'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_medications_history', leaving room for ambiguity about scope or timeframe.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_medications_history' or 'get-drug-info'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid patient ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• search-trialsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching ClinicalTrials.gov but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., study details, summaries), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are formatted. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic search tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or behavioral aspects like rate limits or result structure, leaving too many unknowns for effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'condition' and 'location' parameters represent (e.g., medical condition names, geographic locations), their expected formats, or how they affect the search. This leaves both parameters undocumented.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'search-pubmed', which also searches a medical database but for different content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-pubmed' or other sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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

• find_patientC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Search' which implies a read operation, but doesn't describe what happens with partial matches, whether it returns multiple results, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, whether it's exact or fuzzy matching, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 25% (only birthDate has a description), but the description adds minimal value by mentioning 'demographics' which loosely relates to the parameters. It doesn't explain parameter relationships (like how multiple parameters combine) or provide usage examples, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Search for a patient') and resource ('by demographics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling search tools (though none are listed among siblings), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. It simply states what the tool does without context about usage patterns or limitations.

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

• get_lab_resultsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), leaving significant gaps for a medical data tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence ('Get patient's lab results') that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of medical data retrieval, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like data sensitivity, return format, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low at 33% (only 'category' has a description), but the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain 'patientId' (required), 'timeframe', or provide examples for 'category' beyond the schema's limited enum-like hints, resulting in minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get patient's lab results' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('lab results'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_patient_observations' or 'get_vital_signs' that might also retrieve medical data, missing full sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a patient ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_patient_observations' for other data types, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

• get_patient_allergiesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what happens if patientId is invalid, or the format/scope of returned data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get allergies and intolerances for a patient'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (4 parameters with enums, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact (e.g., can you filter by both category and status?), or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a medical data retrieval tool, more context about data scope and usage is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, all 4 parameters (patientId, category, status, type) are undocumented in both schema and description. However, the description implies filtering by patient, which aligns with the required patientId parameter, providing minimal context. This meets the baseline for inadequate coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('allergies and intolerances for a patient'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_patient_medications or get_patient_conditions by specifying the type of medical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools (none in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid patientId), when not to use it, or how it compares to other patient data tools like get_patient_conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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

• get_patient_conditionsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no conditions exist. For a medical data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (medical data retrieval with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return format, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in a healthcare context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 33% (only 'onsetDate' has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions 'medical conditions/diagnoses for a patient,' which loosely relates to the parameters but doesn't explain their roles (e.g., patientId for identification, status for filtering). With low coverage and no compensation, it meets the baseline for minimal value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('medical conditions/diagnoses for a patient'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_patient_allergies or get_patient_medications by specifying the type of medical data retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings beyond the resource type.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a patient ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_patient_encounters or get_patient_procedures. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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

• get_patient_encountersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, earning full marks for conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like data retrieval limits or error handling, and with low schema coverage, it fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation. This is inadequate for a tool that retrieves patient data with multiple filters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description mentions 'healthcare encounters/visits' but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 50% schema description coverage (two parameters have descriptions, two do not), the description adds minimal value—it implies filtering by patient and possibly date/status, but doesn't clarify semantics like what 'status' enums mean in context. This meets the baseline for partial schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('healthcare encounters/visits for a patient'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_appointments' or 'get_patient_procedures', which might also retrieve patient-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_appointments' or 'get_patient_procedures', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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

• get_patient_observationsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'observations' entail beyond examples. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured by including key usage notes. No wasted words, though it risks under-specification.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error cases, and doesn't compensate for the 40% schema coverage gap. Siblings like get_vital_signs suggest this tool might overlap, but no guidance is provided.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 60%, with parameters like 'code' and date fields well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by hinting at observation types ('vitals, labs'), which loosely relates to 'code', but doesn't clarify semantics for undocumented parameters (e.g., 'patientId' or 'status'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most work.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('observations for a patient'), with examples of observation types ('vitals, labs') that help distinguish it from siblings like get_vital_signs or get_lab_results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_patient_conditions or get_patient_procedures, which might also involve patient data retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., patientId requirement), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_vital_signs or get_lab_results, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• get_patient_proceduresC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get procedures' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'procedures' entails (e.g., medical codes, descriptions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get procedures performed on a patient' is front-loaded and directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'procedures' includes (e.g., types, details), how results are returned, or usage context. For a medical data tool with potential complexity, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 50%, with only 'dateFrom' and 'dateTo' having descriptions (YYYY-MM-DD format). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain 'patientId' format, 'status' enum meanings, or how parameters interact. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'procedures performed on a patient', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_patient_encounters' or 'get_patient_conditions', which might also involve patient medical data retrieval, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_patient_encounters' or 'get_patient_medications', there's no indication of whether this tool is for surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, or other types, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

• get_vital_signsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves history, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, data structure), error handling, or operational constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to ensure the agent can use the tool effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'timeframe' has a description), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'patient's vital signs history', which clarifies the 'patientId' parameter's purpose but adds no details beyond what the schema implies. The description doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints, resulting in marginal value over the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('patient's vital signs history'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_patient_observations or get_patient_conditions by focusing on vital signs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is well-defined but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid patient ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_patient_observations. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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