enabiz_list_radiology_studies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (dynamic results). The description adds valuable behavioral details: authentication requirement, error message on failure, limit semantics (default 50, 0=unlimited, truncated flag), and the fact that it returns studies displayed on the current page. 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 concise with no wasted words. It starts with the primary purpose, then provides necessary behavioral and parameter details in a structured way. Every sentence earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers usage context: purpose, authentication, parameter, and relation to sibling tool. It mentions key output fields (date, institution, description, order_id) and behavior like pagination via limit and truncated. No gaps are apparent for a list tool.

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 single parameter limit has schema coverage 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the default value (50), the meaning of 0 (unlimited), and the truncated flag behavior. This is complete and precise, exceeding the schema's minimal definition.

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 radiological examination/image records from E-Nabız. It mentions returned fields (date, institution, description) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that order_id is used for enabiz_get_radiology_report. The verb 'listeler' (lists) combined with the specific resource makes the purpose unmistakable.

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: requires authenticated session (auth_required error) and explains limit parameter behavior. It implicitly guides when to use this tool versus the report tool by linking order_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other list tools, though the sibling context is clear.

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