enabiz_get_visit_detail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns specific lists (diagnoses, procedures) and requires an authenticated session, resulting in an auth_required error otherwise. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise, with a clear first line and additional details in separate sentences. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points). Overall efficient for its content.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return format but still provides a high-level list of returned fields. It also covers authentication requirements. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that detail_ref is an opaque reference from the output of enabiz_list_hospital_visits, providing essential semantic context for the single parameter.

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 tool returns details of a hospital visit including diagnoses and procedures, using a specific verb 'döndürür' (returns) and resource 'hastane ziyaretinin detayı'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like enabiz_get_diagnosis_detail by focusing on the full visit context.

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 explicitly notes that the detail_ref comes from enabiz_list_hospital_visits, guiding proper sequencing. It also mentions authentication is required, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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