Pre-fill Health Form

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by stating it mints a tenant token, which is not in annotations, and clarifies the access tier. No contradiction.

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 key action and result, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description specifies return type (QuestionnaireResponse). It mentions token minting for non-public tenants, adding context. Could elaborate on when to use inline vs stored questionnaire, but schema handles that.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 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 states 'pre-fill a Questionnaire for a subject' with a specific verb and resource, and includes return type and access tier. It distinguishes from sibling 'questionnaire_extract' by focusing on population rather than extraction.

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?

Description mentions 'Read tier' indicating safe context, and notes token minting for non-public tenants, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. Sibling list includes 'questionnaire_extract' which could be an alternative but is not referenced.

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