Generate a synthetic CDA2 skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the content disclosure: fictional patient, doctor and organisation data, and a 'skeleton' rather than a complete document. The one meaningful omission is whether the output is schema-valid or must be validated separately.

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, front-loaded with the return value and the 'SYNTHETIC' qualifier, then the data composition, then the intended use. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey purpose and constraints, which it does. The missing piece is the workflow link to validate_cda, which would tell an agent whether the generated skeleton is usable as-is or needs validation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a per-enum-value explanation of all four document types. The description only adds the phrase 'chosen FSE 2.0 document type,' which restates the schema rather than extending it. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('SYNTHETIC CDA2 document skeleton'), and the scoping qualifier ('for the chosen FSE 2.0 document type'). This is unambiguous against the sibling set (validate_cda, explain_schematron_error, lookup_code), none of which generate documents.

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?

Explicitly frames the intended contexts: 'as a starting point or as a test fixture.' That is clear usage guidance, but it offers no exclusions or pointer to a sibling (e.g., that validate_cda should be run on the result), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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