get_user_moles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary: this is educational record data, not a risk ranking. It does not disclose details like pagination or image-date formatting, but for a simple read-only listing the key behavior is conveyed.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the important 'educational only' caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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 single-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the important caveat. It could have briefly mentioned output ordering, pagination, or what 'last photo dates' means, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 100%: userId is documented with type, pattern, maxLength, and description. The description's 'a user's' maps naturally to userId, but it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('a user's recorded moles and last photo dates'). Adding 'Educational records only — not a risk ranking' distinguishes it from risk-oriented siblings like get_user_risk_factors and assess_risk_from_factors.

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 clearly states what this tool is not for ('not a risk ranking'), which helps an agent avoid using it for risk assessment. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them over this one.

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