patient_consult_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is HTML and shows a usage example. It does not describe the HTML structure, potential errors, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The example is useful but somewhat redundant with the argument list, yet it still earns its place by demonstrating the workflow. No wasted 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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should offer more detail. It explains the dependency on patient_consult_list but omits the output format, error cases, and any caveats, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description's explanations for caseno and oseq (returned by patient_consult_list) are valuable. However, eip_id, eip_password, and hisno are left undocumented, relying on implicit context from sibling tools. Partial compensation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves consultation content (HTML), using a specific verb and resource. The example further clarifies it as the follow-up to patient_consult_list. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling note tools, the 'consult' qualifier distinguishes it adequately.

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 example provides a clear two-step workflow: first call patient_consult_list to obtain caseno and oseq, then call this tool with those values. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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