Preventive Care Gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by stating it is guideline-based decision support, explicitly clarifying it is not a diagnosis or directive, and mentioning the _meta.ui.resourceUri in the response that points to an embeddable review UI. These are behavioral traits beyond the annotations, giving the agent useful context about what the tool does and what the response includes.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence clarifies the decision-support nature and points to a UI resource. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient and readable.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, the guideline basis, the 'not a diagnosis' caveat, and a key response element (the UI resource). It does not detail error handling or behavior when no gaps are found, but given the tool's complexity and the annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 single parameter 'subject' is fully described in the schema with an example ('Patient/pt-1'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('preventive-care screenings/immunizations'), and enumerates concrete examples (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.). It also names the guideline sources (USPSTF/ACIP/ADA), which distinguishes it from generic FHIR read/search tools in the sibling list. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies the use case: when you need to check which preventive-care screenings a patient may be due for. It also notes it is 'not a diagnosis or directive', which is a limitation but not an explicit routing instruction. It does not name alternatives or specify when NOT to use this tool, though the purpose itself makes the context clear. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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