Appendix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal extra context ('available through Appendix') but doesn't elaborate on behavioral implications like page limits or data freshness. No contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part (verb, resource, scope) is necessary and immediately informative.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits what 'Appendix' refers to and whether the output includes both conditions and medications as implied by the title. Still, annotations provide missing behavioral safety.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'category' parameter with case-insensitivity and an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('all conditions and medications available through Appendix'). It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'search_knowledge_base' implies searching, not listing all, and 'submit_encounter' is a write operation.

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, such as 'search_knowledge_base'. Lacks mention of prerequisites or context where listing all is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds only general context (types of material) without detailing behavior like result structure, pagination, or ranking. Thus, adequate but not enriching.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Slight room for trimming but overall concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context (resource and purpose). However, it lacks details on result format or how to interpret output, which could be important for an agent. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the input schema (query and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'Appendix's medical knowledge base', listing content types (clinical literature, treatment guidelines, reference material). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on medical literature search, while list_conditions and submit_encounter imply different operations.

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 use when helping a user describe a medical issue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_conditions or submit_encounter. No exclusions or when-not conditions are provided.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by indicating a non-destructive write operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the submission undergoes human review by a physician, implying asynchronous handling and potential time delay. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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: main action, return behavior, and additional context about physician review. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 has three parameters well-documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, return types, and human involvement. However, it does not specify the conditions for returning feedback versus a checkout URL, nor the expected timeframes, which could be useful.

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% with all three parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the required format ('Markdown following the Appendix letter structure') and implicitly clarifying the role of session_token (continuation context). This assists in correct parameter usage.

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 specific verb 'Submit' and resource 'clinical encounter letter to the Appendix physician team'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'list_conditions' and 'search_knowledge_base', which are unrelated operations.

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 states when to use: to submit a clinical letter for physician review. It implies the tool is for one specific workflow and provides context about outcomes (feedback or checkout URL). While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

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