get_patient_history

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions fetching history, with no details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or output format. For a read operation, minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 very concise at 7 words, front-loading the verb and object. No unnecessary words, but could include more contextual information without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context on what constitutes 'medical history' and how this fits with sibling tools, leaving gaps for complex scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'by ID' but does not elaborate on the format, source, or constraints of 'patientId'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'medical history by ID', clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_consultation' or 'generate_medical_notes', which may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states 'by ID' without hinting at prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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