enabiz_list_chronic_disease_followups

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

The description discloses read-only behavior (consistent with readOnlyHint), requires authenticated session with an explicit 'auth_required' error, explains limit parameter behavior (default 50, 0=unlimited, truncated flag), and describes case-insensitive filtering on query. This adds significant 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 the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params), the description covers return fields, auth requirements, limit behavior, filtering, and truncation. With output schema present, no additional return value details are needed. The description is complete for effective use.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: limit with default, 0 meaning unlimited, and truncated flag; query with case-insensitive filtering on chronic disease field. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well. However, there is a minor inconsistency: schema default is null but description states default 50, which could cause confusion.

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 chronic disease follow-up records and is read-only. It specifies the fields returned (follow-up type, chronic disease, dates, status) and explicitly distinguishes it from diagnosis history (Hastaliklarim), making the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 mentions this tool is separate from diagnosis history, providing implicit guidance to not confuse with other list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use scenarios. The differentiation from diagnosis history is useful, but not fully comprehensive.

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