Referrals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful data-scope context (active plus earlier referrals to specialists/hospitals), but it does not disclosure response format, ordering, or any further behavioral details.

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?

A single sentence with topic-first structure and no filler. The parenthetical 'henvisninger' is optional but harmless, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameterless read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what the tool returns. It could mention the response shape or referral statuses in more detail, but the simplicity of the tool does not require 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. With 100% schema description coverage and no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the resource (referrals/henvisninger), scopes it to 'Active and earlier', and specifies target types (specialists and hospitals). This clearly distinguishes it from the health-data sibling tools, none of which target referrals.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance; the intended usage is only implied by the resource name and content. Since no sibling tool targets referrals, the lack of routing instructions is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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