find_recalls

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects on data. The name and description imply a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a usage example. No superfluous words or details.

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 description is too brief given the tool's 5 parameters and the presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., find_appointments). It does not cover filtering by patnum or recall_type, nor does it mention pagination via limit. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but overall completeness is lacking.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains only due_date_start and due_date_end, leaving limit, patnum, and recall_type undocumented. This is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 it lists recalls due for patients, specifying a verb and resource. It provides an example using due date parameters, which effectively communicates the primary use case. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_appointments (which lists appointments, not recalls).

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 includes an example scenario ('use due_date_start + due_date_end to get everyone due for a hygiene visit'), giving context for when to use the tool. But it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for other recall types (e.g., via recall_type).

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