clinical_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which indicates a safe read operation, the description discloses an important external dependency: the DINGDAWG_API_KEY for LLM-powered summarization. It also hints at the token/cost implications of using an LLM, which is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and the second provides the key prerequisite and output components, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value. It lists the extracted fields, which gives a good sense of the output structure. However, it doesn't clarify the difference between the 'soap', 'structured', and 'brief' formats, and doesn't mention potential errors if the API key is missing, leaving slight gaps for such a complex operation.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the output extracts chief complaint, HPI, assessment, and plan, which clarifies what the 'format' parameter's 'structured' option entails and what the tool does with the clinical_notes parameter.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('clinical notes'), and clearly states the goal ('into structured format'). It further specifies the key extracted elements (chief complaint, HPI, assessment, plan), which distinguishes this tool from siblings like patient_intake or appointment_scheduler.

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 for when to use this tool (to summarize clinical notes) and mentions a critical prerequisite (DINGDAWG_API_KEY). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different in purpose that no exclusions are necessary.

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