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 but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, it fails to clarify what 'current' means (active vs discontinued), output format, pagination, or PHI handling requirements critical for healthcare tools.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured with the verb front-loaded. No redundant words, though brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values (medication names, dosages, dates) and scope (active-only vs historical). For a healthcare tool handling PHI, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with patient_id fully documented ('OpenEMR patient ID (e.g., p001)'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('medication list'), clearly stating the tool retrieves patient medication data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like drug_interaction_check or drug_safety_flag_list, relying instead on naming conventions.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives such as drug_interaction_check (which requires medication data) or drug_safety_flag_list. No prerequisites or workflow context is mentioned.

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