getObservations

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 fails to mention any traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or data filtering behavior. The agent gets no insight into how the tool behaves beyond a generic get operation.

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 a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more content would improve utility without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and sparse description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent cannot infer what the response contains (e.g., list of observations, fields), how parameters interact (e.g., if both visit and encounter are provided), or error conditions. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 adds minimal context by stating the tool is for a visit or encounter, but does not explain what the 'concept' parameter does or clarify that visitUuid and encounterUuid are identifiers. The agent lacks understanding of parameter semantics.

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 observations for a visit or encounter, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource and context. It distinguishes from siblings that retrieve different entities (e.g., drugs, patients). However, it could be more precise about the scope (all observations or filtered).

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 implies usage for retrieving observations related to visits or encounters but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or when-to-use context beyond the vague 'for a visit or an encounter.'

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