Daily check-in

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

With annotations all false (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs symptom escalation and alerts caregivers automatically, and it provides a critical instruction to relay emergencyGuidance verbatim. This is valuable context, though it doesn't cover every side effect like record creation or permissions.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core action, the second notes the automatic alerting behavior, and the third gives the emergencyGuidance instruction. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. However, the description misses guidance on the `notes` parameter and provides no usage boundaries against siblings like call_for_help. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps for full autonomous decision-making.

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 75%, with the `notes` parameter undocumented. The description only reiterates 'in their own words' for symptoms, which the schema already states as 'verbatim.' It adds no new meaning for mood, elderId, or notes, so it minimally compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'records how the elder feels today' including mood and symptoms. This distinguishes it from siblings like log_dose or call_for_help by focusing on daily well-being, even without naming them explicitly.

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 when to use the tool (for a daily check-in) and mentions automatic escalation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like call_for_help, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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