get_safe_phrases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the tool is a 'Reference only — phrasing patterns reflect curated review experience, not formal NHI directives' and that it returns up to 5 scenarios per call. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence summarizing purpose, followed by use/don't use guidelines and additional context. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, making it efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (scenario name, high-risk wording, key difference, first sentence) and its limitations (up to 5 scenarios, preview only, not official directives). It also directs to the full product and alternative tool, providing complete context for the agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by giving concrete examples (e.g., 'dermatology + 抗生素') and stating that scenario_query is an ILIKE match, which helps the agent understand usage beyond the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool previews OPDSTAR-curated NHI-safe phrasing patterns for a given specialty, returning scenario name, high-risk wording, key difference, and first safe-phrasing example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'search_audit_guidelines' by explicitly stating the different use case.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('helping draft SOAP wording and needs to flag risky phrasing before submission'), when not to use ('Don't use to retrieve full ready-to-copy templates'), and directs to an alternative tool ('call search_audit_guidelines'). This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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