enabiz_list_diagnoses

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it describes the query parameter as case-insensitive filtering, explains the limit parameter behavior (default 50, 0 means unlimited, and a truncated flag), and specifies the authentication error message ('auth_required'). This goes well 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 and well-structured: a purpose line, then details on output fields, query behavior, authentication, and limit parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical info (what it does) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema? Actually context says has output schema true, but description still provides sufficient output structure (date, diagnosis with ICD code+name, clinic, physician, sys_takip_no). It also covers auth, error handling, and limit behavior. Complete for a list tool with this complexity.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: 'query' for case-insensitive filtering on diagnosis text, and 'limit' for maximum records (default 50, 0=unlimited) with a truncated flag. This adds complete meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists E-Nabız diagnosis/disease history and is read-only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the detail tool enabiz_get_diagnosis_detail. The verb 'listeler' (lists) and resource 'tanı/hastalık geçmişini' (diagnosis/disease history) are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to list diagnoses) and when to use the alternative enabiz_get_diagnosis_detail for details. It also mentions the authentication requirement and the error response, giving the agent clear context for decision-making.

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