rank_trusts_by_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does: it reveals the ordering, the optional filters, and the important edge-case behavior that trusts without figures are listed after ranked ones. It does not mention read-only status or availability constraints, but for a data-query tool the stated behavior is substantively transparent.

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 sentences contain the core purpose, data source, ordering, optional parameters, and an edge-case behavior with zero filler. The statement is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 ranking tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the data source, ordering, filters, and gap behavior. Minor details like the unit of waiting time or whether limit applies to gap-listed trusts are not stated, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly from this 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?

The schema has 0% parameter coverage, so the description must compensate, and it maps all three parameters: specialty is the required filter, region restricts geography, and limit caps the number of returned trusts. It does not enumerate valid specialty/region values, but it conveys the role of each parameter beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Rank NHS trusts by their latest waiting time for a specialty'), specifies ordering ('longest first'), and identifies the data source. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like wait_time_trend or lookup_wait_time, which are point/trend lookups rather than cross-trust rankings.

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 states the use case clearly—comparing trusts across a specialty and optionally filtering by region or count. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the ranking purpose and data source give enough context for an agent to select it over lookup/trend tools.

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