calculate_patient_risk_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions calculation and data sources but omits whether the tool is read-only or mutates any state, required permissions, side effects, or output format.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information, and the action (calculate) and resources (risk scores) are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 moderate complexity (multiple data sources). The description fails to explain what the risk scores look like, how they are formatted, or any thresholds. It also does not mention that omitting patient_id covers all patients, though the schema does. Overall 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?

The input schema has two parameters with 50% description coverage (patient_id has a description, lookback_days does not). The tool description adds context on data sources but does not explain lookback_days or provide additional semantics beyond the schema for patient_id. 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 tool calculates rehabilitation risk scores and lists specific data sources (patient records, therapy sessions, wearable measurements, medication adherence). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'identify_declining_rehabilitation_outcomes' which focuses on decline detection rather than scoring.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for invocation.

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