enabiz_list_allergies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining truncation behavior (truncated: true), authentication error, and that results combine three categories. It also mentions the 'limit' parameter's effect (0 = unlimited).

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and this is a list tool with few parameters, the description covers return fields (tarih, kategori, etc.), auth requirement, truncation, and parameter behavior comprehensively.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both 'category' (if given, returns only that category) and 'limit' (default 50, 0 = unlimited, truncation flag) with sufficient detail beyond raw schema properties.

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 lists allergy records (E-Nabız alerji kayıtlarını listeler) and specifies it is read-only (salt-okunur). It also explains the three categories combined (ilac, tani, deri), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other health data.

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 provides guidance by noting authentication requirements (kimlikli oturum gerektirir) and behavior when category parameter is provided (yalnız o kategori döner). It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the specialization to allergies is clear.

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