oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes what the tool evaluates (screenings like colonoscopy, dental, etc.), the basis for evaluation (patient age, sex, treatment_events history), and the return format (compliance report with actionable screening status). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core functionality adequately.

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 efficiently structured in three paragraphs: purpose, evaluation criteria/constraints, and return value. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core function.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it requires, what it evaluates, and what it returns - covering all necessary aspects without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on context requirements (patient_type, date_of_birth, sex) rather than input parameters, adding value by clarifying what data must be available in the patient context for the tool to function correctly.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Evaluates') and resources ('EU preventive care screening compliance', 'general health patient'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on preventive care status assessment rather than document management, lab analysis, or other patient operations listed among siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only available for patients with patient_type="general" in their context') and prerequisites ('Requires date_of_birth and sex in patient context'). It provides clear context for application without needing to reference specific alternatives among siblings.

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