get_health_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output is 'deterministic' (stable for a given state) and deliberately includes unverified allergies, which tells the agent how to interpret data quality. It doesn't mention freshness/pagination, but for a parameterless read that is minor.

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, zero waste. The content enumeration is front-loaded and the routing hint to query_observations comes last as the qualifier it is.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return values, and it does list the sections an agent should expect. The only gap is the absence of any statement about how this aggregate relates to the single-domain siblings (get_allergies, get_diagnoses, get_medications), which an agent choosing between them would benefit from.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax and instead describes the content of the result.

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 names a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: profile, allergies (including unverified), active diagnoses, current medications, and exam recency. It also distinguishes itself from query_observations by labeling itself 'a guide' rather than a source of exact values, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context (overview/guide use) and names the alternative for exact values: 'exact values via query_observations.' That is an explicit alternative with a selection condition, though it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to the narrower get_allergies/get_diagnoses/get_medications siblings.

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