enabiz_list_materials_devices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds behavioral details: explains category combination, limit behavior (default 50, 'truncated: true' if exceeded), and authentication requirement. No contradictions with 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 short (3 paragraphs), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides necessary detail. No redundant or vague statements.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filtering, parameter behavior, and authentication. It is complete for the tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'limit' (max records, default 50, 0=unlimited, truncated flag) and 'category' (allows filtering from five listed values: diger, vucut, isitme, goz, ozel_yapim). Adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 medical material/device records (verb 'listeler' + resource 'tıbbi malzeme/cihaz kayıtları'), specifies it combines 5 categories, and filters by category. It distinguishes well from sibling list tools like enabiz_list_allergies or enabiz_list_appointments.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (listing medical devices with category filtering) and mentions requirements (authenticated session). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity among siblings.

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