Call for help

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds key behavioral detail: it alerts ALL caregivers immediately and returns emergency guidance to speak verbatim. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps an agent understand the impact and output.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and clearly states the action and output. There is no redundant phrasing; every clause contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description includes the trigger, the side effect (alerting all caregivers), and the output (emergency guidance). It does not mention prerequisites or reversibility, but for an emergency tool this is acceptable and the core information is complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (elderId and message), each with descriptive text. The description adds minimal extra semantic value—it provides example phrases for the message but does not explain parameter relationships or additional constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific verb ('alerts') and resource ('ALL caregivers'), and defines the trigger conditions with concrete examples ('help', 'I fell', 'I can't breathe'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like daily_checkin and resolve_alert by emphasizing the 'outside a check-in' context.

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 gives a clear trigger condition ('the elder asked for help or said something alarming outside a check-in') which implicitly excludes regular check-in scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of daily_checkin', but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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