get_visit_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. The description only lists usage scenarios without behavioral context.

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 a concise bullet list of four items with a clear usage instruction at the start. No extraneous text; it is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a brief summary sentence.

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's simplicity (one optional param, no annotations, output schema exists), the description provides some usage context but fails to explain parameter semantics or return behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in how to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'speciality'. The description does not explain what this parameter does, how it filters results, or its allowed values (e.g., whether free-text or expected to match a set of specialties). This is a significant gap for a tool with one 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 lists four specific use cases (doctor visits, specialist notes, medical history by specialty, appointment prep) but does not provide a clear general statement of the tool's purpose. It implies retrieval of visit history, but the verb 'get' is not explicitly paired with a resource definition.

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 'Use this tool when asked about:' followed by four categories, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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