Get allergies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only' which aligns with annotations, and mentions return format but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or error handling. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, then briefly states return fields and nature. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema (not shown but present), and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions return fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema details in the description.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (limit, patientId). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 'List' and resource 'a patient's allergies and intolerances from Practice Fusion'. It specifies the return format 'shaped allergy summaries (substance, status, criticality)' and marks it as 'Read-only', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other clinical data.

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 usage for retrieving allergy data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like practicefusion_get_conditions or practicefusion_get_medications. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided beyond patientId requirement.

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