openemr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that interactions are 'severity-classified' but fails to specify the severity scale (e.g., critical/major/moderate), data sources, handling of unknown drug names, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal disclosure for a medical safety tool.

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 consists of exactly two efficient sentences with zero waste: the first states the operation, the second states the return characteristic. It is appropriately front-loaded and sized.

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 absence of an output schema, the description briefly mentions 'severity-classified interactions' but does not specify the return structure or severity levels. While adequate for basic invocation given the simple input schema, medical safety context suggests more detail about output format would be appropriate.

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 100% description coverage ('List of drug names to check for interactions'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as whether drug names should be generic vs. brand or if dosages should be included.

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 checks medications for drug-drug interactions and mentions the severity-classified return format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openemr_drug_safety_flag_list or openemr_fda_adverse_events, relying on the name to imply the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use openemr_fda_adverse_events instead) or prerequisites such as required drug name formats. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage constraints.

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