patient_opd_note

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

The description discloses the return fields (S, O, P, soap, drugs, orders), which is useful behavioral context. However, no annotations are present, so the description must convey all safety and side-effect information; it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication requirements or error behavior. The 'Returns' section adds value but leaves 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 extremely concise, with three clearly separated sections: purpose, prerequisite, and returns. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No redundant text exists.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain everything. It covers purpose, a prerequisite, and returns, but fails to define many return fields (e.g., what 'soap' contains vs S/O/P) and leaves the meaning of several parameters unexplained. For a moderate-complexity tool with 7 parameters and no structured aids, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains that dt and dept should be obtained from patient_opd_list, giving those parameters meaning. The other five parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno, doc, deptnm) receive no semantic explanation. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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's function: '取得門診 SOAP 病歷' (get outpatient SOAP medical record), with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the return fields (S, O, P, soap, drugs, orders), which identifies this as the OPD note retrieval tool versus operation note (patient_op_note) or list tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite: '需先用 patient_opd_list 取得 dt、dept 參數' (must first use patient_opd_list to obtain dt, dept parameters). This names a sibling tool as the correct preceding step, giving clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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