tebra_get_encounter

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 indicates a read operation (Get) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the linked data is included in a single request. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation backup.

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?

One sentence with 11 words, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent 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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is returned (linked data) but lacks context on potential error states, authentication, or how it compares to other tools in this domain. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is fair—covers basic purpose but leaves gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter (encounterId). The description adds minimal extra value by specifying the included data (charges, diagnoses, procedures), which hints at the response structure. However, this is not essential since the schema already defines the parameter and its purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), the resource (encounter details from Tebra), and the specific included components (linked charges, diagnoses, procedures). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tebra_get_charges or tebra_get_patient.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools, but the description does not offer any comparison, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent has no information to decide between this and similar retrieval tools.

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