enabiz_list_discharge_summaries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: requires authentication, returns auth_required error, truncation flag, default year range, and return fields. No contradictions.

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 bullet points for readability. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with code-style formatting. Could be streamlined but effective.

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?

Description covers parameters, defaults, error handling, truncation, return fields, and auth requirement. With output schema present, it is mostly complete. Minor gap: no mention of pagination beyond limit and truncation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: start_year/end_year defaults, query case-insensitive filter, limit max records and default. Adds meaning beyond schema types.

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 discharge summaries (epikrizler) by year range, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique resource type (taburcu özetleri).

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 implies usage for listing discharge summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like other list tools. It provides context (requires authenticated session) but no exclusions or comparisons.

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