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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by stating 'reads'. It adds context about batch execution with paciente_ids. However, the behavior of multiple actions within one tool is not fully explained, nor how they are invoked.

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 verbose, listing multiple actions in a bullet format without clear prioritization. The critical information about bulk support and flattened action is buried at the end. It could be significantly condensed.

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 no output schema and low coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't. It omits return value details, parameter explanations, and how the tool differentiates from siblings like feegow_patient_list. The multi-action nature is poorly handled.

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 0% – the description does not explain any of the actual parameters (data, account, paciente_id, paciente_ids). Worse, it mentions parameters not in the schema (data_inicio, data_fim, tipo_pedido) without linking them to schema fields. This is misleading and fails to add value.

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 tool name suggests exam requests, but the description lists multiple other actions (list_sources, list_dependents, etc.). The primary purpose is diluted, and the 'flattened action' concept adds confusion. The description starts with 'Supporting patient data reads' which is too vague.

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?

Only one alternative is mentioned ('For uploading a file... use feegow_patient_support_write'). No guidance on when to use this tool vs other patient list/search tools, or how to choose among the multiple sub-actions listed.

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