list_available_materia_medicas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this is a read/discovery operation ('Get a complete list'), which signals non-mutating behavior. However, it doesn't describe the output format, potential pagination/limits, or whether the 'complete list' could be large. The description adds some behavioral context (metadata contents) but lacks depth.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and appends a brief usage note. It could arguably trim the final clause, but overall it's well-structured and appropriately compact.

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 an output schema exists and one simple optional parameter with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a discovery tool that lists all items, it doesn't mention potential scale, ordering, or navigation behavior. For the tool's low complexity, it's adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'language' has 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already explaining it's an optional filter by language code with examples. The description says 'returns all materia medicas' if unspecified, which adds slight context about default behavior beyond the schema. However, this mainly restates what the schema already conveys, so baseline 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 ('Get a complete list'), the resource ('all available homeopathic materia medicas'), and the metadata returned (title, author, language). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's about discovery rather than searching, which differentiates it from search_materia_medica and search_repertory. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_available_repertories, a close sibling.

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 notes it is 'Useful for discovering which materia medicas are available for searching,' implying usage in a discovery/discovery-before-search workflow. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or explicit exclusion of alternatives like search_materia_medica. The implied guidance is helpful but not explicit.

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