hipaa_check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the basic check runs locally and that a deeper audit requires an API key. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose and distinguish between free and API-key modes. No filler or redundant content.

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 explains the return value at a high level and mentions the two modes, but lacks detail on how the API key is supplied given no such parameter exists in the schema. With no output schema, more explicit return or invocation details would improve completeness.

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 documents both parameters with full coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter syntax. The description's mention of 'processes and systems' loosely maps to process_description but adds little beyond the schema.

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 performs a HIPAA compliance quick check for processes and systems and returns basic compliance gaps. It also differentiates from the clinical/patient-focused sibling tools by its compliance domain.

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 provides context for when to use the free quick check versus the deeper LLM-powered audit with an API key. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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