openemr-mcp

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

Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. It effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: returns ranked results, includes urgency levels, and provides medical disclaimer. This signals liability considerations and output structure without output schema.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. First establishes purpose, second describes return characteristics. No redundant words; every element earns its place including the critical medical disclaimer mention.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by describing return structure (ranked conditions, urgency, disclaimer). Appropriate for single-parameter tool with complete input schema. Could mention if patient context affects results.

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 has 100% coverage with clear examples. Description focuses on output behavior rather than input parameters, adding no specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score appropriate given schema quality.

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?

States specific action (look up conditions) and resource (symptoms) clearly. Distinguishes from siblings (drug interactions, appointments, patient records) by focusing on symptom-to-condition mapping, though 'look up' is slightly generic.

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?

Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to siblings like 'visit_prep' or 'patient_search'. However, the domain (symptom checking) is distinct enough from drug/administrative tools that usage is reasonably implied.

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