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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the paginated return shape ('a page plus next/previous') and the underlying API call, which goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and API endpoint. No sentence is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by mentioning the paginated return shape and the endpoint. Combined with a fully documented input schema, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could say slightly more about defaults or ordering.

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 the schema already documents page, page_size, doctor, and patient semantics. The description only restates that filtering is possible by patient or doctor and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('problem-list entries (diagnoses)'), with the parenthetical synonym disambiguating it from sibling list tools like list_allergies or list_medications. An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

States the filtering options ('filterable by patient or doctor'), which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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