summarize_conditions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels itself as a 'data-retrieval tool' (implying read-only) and adds the key disclaimer that it is not clinical or diagnostic, which discloses the tool's limitations. It does not detail return format or error handling, but these are less critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds context (nature of data, non-clinical disclaimer). There is no redundant or vague language.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it's a retrieval, the sandbox-only context, and a caution about clinical use. The absence of output schema details is acceptable because the description's 'plain-language summary' provides the expected return nature.

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 schema covers the single parameter patientId with a clear description ('The FHIR Patient resource id'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 for 100% schema coverage applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a patient's recorded conditions (diagnoses)', and specifies the output as a 'plain-language summary'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patient or get_observations, which focus on different resources and formats.

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 important usage context: 'Synthetic sandbox data only' and 'not a clinical or diagnostic tool', which tells the agent when and why to use it. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide comparisons for when to choose one over another, so it stops short of a 5.

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