patient_op_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add value by stating the return format (HTML) and the automatic conversion to ROC-era 8-digit format (01141104), which are useful operational details. However, it doesn't disclose authentication needs (though eip_id/eip_password are params), potential errors, or side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and structured with an Args section, Returns line, and internal conversion note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids fluff. The Args section does partially duplicate schema info, but the included example adds value, making it efficient overall.

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 the tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to provide more context. It conveys the core function and return format but omits the meaning of three parameters, any usage scenarios, and error/edge-case behavior. For a moderately complex tool, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly explains 'dt' with a format example (YYYY-MM-DD and auto-conversion), but the other three required parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno) are not mentioned at all. This leaves 75% of parameters semantically opaque, which is a significant gap.

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 retrieves a surgical record (手術病歷) as HTML, using a specific verb ('取得') and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like patient_op_list or patient_op_schedule, the term '手術病歷' is specific enough to distinguish it from outpatient or admission notes, so it nearly meets the bar for explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only operational note is about automatic date format conversion, which is a detail of invocation, not usage context. This leaves the agent without clear direction among many patient/surgery-related siblings.

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