list_observations

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

The description discloses that 'reason is audited', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as read-only status, pagination, or error handling.

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 concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the audit note as a caveat, with 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 tool has an output schema and only two parameters, but the description lacks usage guidance and detailed parameter semantics. The audit note is valuable but insufficient for a complete picture.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that 'reason is audited', which adds minimal context, but does not explain the purpose or format of either parameter, especially patient_id.

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 'List a patient's observations', specifying the verb (list), resource (observations), and scope (patient's). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_patients and parse_clinical_document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it, or how it relates to related tools like search_guidelines or get_patient.

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