openemr_symptom_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a lookup (non-destructive) and mentions a medical disclaimer, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits, which would be expected for a medical lookup tool. The description is honest but could be more comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place: first sentence states purpose, second states returns. No waste.

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 required parameter, no output schema, and clear purpose), the description is complete. It specifies input format with example, expected returns (ranked conditions, urgency, disclaimer), and the context among sibling tools is clear. No additional details are needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (the schema already describes the 'symptoms' parameter with an example). The description does not compensate further, so a 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Look up' and resource 'possible conditions for a list of symptoms'. It distinguishes itself from other sibling tools (e.g., appointment, drug) by focusing on symptom-based condition lookup, and it specifies output includes ranked conditions with urgency and disclaimer, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage context: for obtaining possible conditions from symptoms. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. Given it's the only symptom tool among siblings, the purpose is self-evident, so a 3 for implied usage is appropriate.

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