list_ext_remedies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of default page size, whether results are sorted, or what a 'remedy' object contains. With a lower bar due to annotations, this still falls short of adding any behavioral context.

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?

It is very short, but not efficiently so: the endpoint line and 'List and filter all remedy' are redundant with each other and the latter is ungrammatical. There is no information beyond the minimum, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 13-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what a remedy is, how filters interact, and what a default call returns. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the schema carries full semantics for pagination, status enum, ordering format, and time ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning (e.g., default page/size, whether filters combine with AND), so baseline 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?

The description states a verb+resource ('List ... all remedy') and even names the HTTP endpoint, so the purpose is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes this list operation from siblings like get_ext_remedy, start_ext_remedy, or cancel_ext_remedy, and the phrasing 'List and filter all remedy' is a near-restatement of the name.

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?

It implies the tool is a filtered listing but gives no guidance on when to use it versus get_ext_remedy (fetch one) or start_ext_remedy/cancel_ext_remedy (actions). No prerequisites, pagination expectations, or scoping notes are provided.

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