get_safe_phrases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context: up to 5 scenarios per call, reference only, not formal NHI directives. No contradictions, but could mention any rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Description is well-organized: purpose first, then usage guidelines, then references. Could trim 'Curated by OPDSTAR' line, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return fields and behavior (up to 5 scenarios, reference-only). Sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning with examples (e.g., dermatology + 抗生素) and clarifies that scenario_query is an optional ILIKE filter, adding value 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?

Description clearly states the tool previews NHI-safe phrasing patterns for a specialty, listing specific return fields: scenario name, high-risk wording, key difference, first sentence. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_audit_guidelines.

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?

Explicit when to use (helping draft SOAP wording, flagging risky phrasing) and when not to use (full templates are paid). Provides alternative: search_audit_guidelines for underlying audit rules.

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