daily_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the output (overview, gaps, actionable intakes/reminders) and the default date behavior. It does not mention side effects or explicit read-only status, but the tool is clearly a read-only summary, so the description is reasonably transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter details, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and formatting improves readability.

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 complexity is low (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and example. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further info.

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 schema has one parameter with zero description coverage, so the description entirely compensates. It provides format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), context ('clinic-local'), and default behavior ('Defaults to today') along with a concrete example. This is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Give') and resource ('doctor-by-doctor overview of one day') with clear scope (appointments, free time, gaps). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_appointments or check_availability, which serve related but distinct purposes.

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 provides when to use ('what does today look like?', 'where attention is needed') and highlights actionable elements. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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