find_commlogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it flags notes as untrusted content that must never be treated as instructions, warns that historical entries do not establish current illness or consent, and points at next_offset for full traversal. It does not describe error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by three short, non-overlapping sentences covering injection safety, interpretive caveats and pagination. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 is a simple paginated read and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety caveats are well covered. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, which at 0% schema coverage leaves limit and offset underspecified in both structured and natural-language form.

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 carry the burden for patnum, limit and offset. It only implicitly identifies patnum (one patient) and hints at offset semantics through next_offset; limit, its default of 50 and its maximum of 100 are never explained, so most parameter meaning is left to the bare schema titles.

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 specific verb-plus-resource ('Read one patient's communication history') and narrows scope to 'dated staff and parent notes', which is enough to separate it from siblings like find_appointments or find_procedurelogs. It stops short of naming an alternative directly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one patient's' (requires patnum) and by the instruction to 'Follow next_offset for complete history', which tells the agent how to page. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so selection still depends on inference from the resource name.

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