verify_guardian_binding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context about the tool being a mandatory gate before data access, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether it is read-only, or any security/error behavior. This is a minimum viable level of transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and mandatory usage. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple verification tool with an output schema, but it leaves gaps. It explains the tool's role as a prerequisite but does not mention failure behavior, return values, or exceptions. Given this is an access-control gate, understanding failure outcomes is important for correct invocation.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'patient_id' and 'guardian_token'. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, the description does not clarify token format, source, or relationship to the verification process. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: verifying the binding relationship between guardian and patient. It uses a specific verb '核验' (verify) and names the resource, distinguishing it from sibling data-access tools. The additional context that it is mandatory before patient data access further clarifies its unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before every access to patient data by the parent assistant. This gives clear usage context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Since all siblings are data-access tools, it is implicit that this is the prerequisite step, but explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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