enabiz_list_emergency_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the return format (date, subject, description), the case-insensitive query filter on subject, the limit behavior with default, and the truncated flag for open-world indication. 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 (3-4 sentences) with a clear front-loaded structure: purpose, return fields, filter, limit details. Every sentence provides essential information 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 the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers input semantics, output fields, and the truncated indicator. It is complete for an agent to understand usage and response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'limit' (max records, default 50, 0=unlimited, with truncated output) and 'query' (case-insensitive filter on subject). This compensates entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'E-Nabız acil durum notlarını listeler' (lists emergency notes) and 'salt-okunur' (read-only), specifying the verb and resource. The tool name and context with siblings confirm it is a list tool for emergency notes, distinct from other list 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 implies usage for listing emergency notes but does not provide when-to-use guidance versus sibling list tools. It mentions 'Kimlikli oturum gerektirir' (requires authenticated session) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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