generate_rehabilitation_reports

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions generating a report and optional Firecrawl research section, but does not clearly state whether it is read-only, any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. 'Generate' suggests non-destructive, but not explicit.

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 front-loads key purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from breaking out options (e.g., single patient vs cohort, optional research inclusion).

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description fails to provide sufficient context. Missing behavioral traits, output format details, and how 'whole cohort' is specified. Leaves agent uncertain about usage boundaries.

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 covers 67% of parameters (patient_id, include_research have descriptions; lookback_days missing). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Does not explain lookback_days or parameter interactions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'generate' and resource 'markdown rehabilitation report', and distinguishes between 'one patient or the whole cohort'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_patient_risk_scores or search_rehabilitation_research.

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?

Implies usage for generating reports, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like identify_declining_rehabilitation_outcomes or search_rehabilitation_research. No when-not-to-use information.

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