get_followup_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: role-dependent filtering (doctor notes stripped for patient/family). It also explicitly labels the operation as 'read' and notes all roles can read, implying non-destructive behavior. Lacks details like pagination or error handling, but the critical access-control behavior is well-covered.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and read-only nature, then adding the role-based detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and parameters are simple, the description covers the essential context: what is read, who can read what, and the fact it's a read operation. It doesn't explain the 'plan timeline' fully, but that's a minor omission for a read tool with an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does explain the 'caller' parameter implicitly via role lists (clinical vs patient/family) and its effect on visibility. However, 'patient_id' is not explicitly described, and the mapping between parameter names and description is indirect, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool reads follow-up records and plan timeline, with an explicit 'read' label and role-based access. It distinguishes itself from siblings like schedule_followup (write) and get_adherence_score/get_pew_history by focusing on reading follow-up records as a distinct resource.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to read follow-up records) and explains visibility rules based on caller role. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives/exclusions, but the role scoping makes the intended use clear enough.

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