Get a clinician's diary

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the 45-day API limit, the time-ordered return composition, and the redaction regime (email, phone, NHS-shaped digit groups, postcodes redacted unless include_contact_details). This goes well beyond what the annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the return contents, then the PII gating rule, then the sibling redirect. Three dense, clause-heavy sentences; all earn their place, though the parenthetical and nested lists make it slightly heavy to parse.

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 compensates by describing the shape of the response (intervals in time order, each with start/end time, location, services; bookings carry patient name). Nothing critical an agent needs before calling this tool is missing.

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 coverage is high (75%) and already documents the date formats and the include_contact_details flag in detail. The description still adds value by framing what that flag unlocks in terms of agenda content (patient contact details, DOB, NHS number, address, free-text booking information).

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?

States a specific resource (clinician's diary) with explicit scope (date range, max 45 days) and enumerates the returned entity types: bookings, availability intervals and unavailability intervals. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling find_availability, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative: 'Availability shows the schedule, not bookable times: use find_availability for those.' It also states the precondition that gates sensitive fields (contact data only with include_contact_details) and the 45-day constraint, giving both when-to-use and a key when-not-to-use.

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