workflow_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data is local and 'nothing is sent to the directory,' confirming no external side effects. It does not discuss freshness or scope limits of the summary.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the content enumeration front-loaded and the side-effect caveat second. Nothing to trim.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and the rich annotations plus the privacy statement cover the behavioral gap. The only shortfall is that the description doesn't clarify how this aggregate relates to the narrower sibling getters, which matters for routing in a 20-tool set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — this earns the baseline of 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the resources aggregated: local preferences, saved therapists, drafts, and due follow-ups. This distinguishes it as a composite overview rather than a single-resource getter, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_preferences or list_appointments.

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?

Usage is only implied by the aggregate framing — an agent can infer this is a starting-point summary, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are given. The closing privacy note is not usage guidance.

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