openemr_questionnaire_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, output format, rate limits, or required permissions. Only the basic retrieval function is implied.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words, directly stating the core function. No extraneous information; perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 explains the purpose and gives an example but lacks details about the return format (e.g., array of scores with timestamps). Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'trajectories' means. Adequate but 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra value (e.g., PHQ-9 context) but is not necessary for understanding the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'longitudinal questionnaire score trajectories' with specific example 'PHQ-9 depression screening'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lab_trends or vital_trends, which deal with different metrics.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. Usage is implied by the tool name and description focusing on questionnaire trends, but there is no guidance on when not to use it versus other trend tools like openemr_health_trajectory.

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