patient_intake

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint:true, and the description adds that it returns structured intake locally and requires an API key for deep ICD-10 coding and clinical reasoning. This provides useful extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as local processing and key requirement.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every phrase adds value, including the free aspect, local processing, and deep LLM features, with no redundant words.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing triage priority, symptom analysis, and ICD-10 coding as outputs. It lacks details on input prerequisites or error handling, but is reasonably complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions symptoms for analysis but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as age, gender, or medical_history specifics.

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 identifies the tool as an AI patient intake form performing triage priority and symptom analysis, with additional ICD-10 coding. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like clinical_summary and 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 implies use for patient intake and symptom analysis, setting clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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