enabiz_list_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details: requirement of authenticated session, structure of returned reports (date, number, type, etc.), and the truncated flag. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by bullet-point parameter details, return field list, auth note, and limit behavior. Every sentence adds value 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 0% schema description coverage and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains parameters, defaults, error conditions, and response structure. However, it does not mention ordering or pagination beyond limit, so slightly incomplete for full autonomous use.

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% description coverage, but the description fully explains all four parameters: start_year/end_year (year range with default last 6 years), type_query (case-insensitive filter), limit (max records with default 50, 0=unlimited, and truncated response). This provides complete semantics 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 health reports by year range ('E-Nabız sağlık raporlarını yıl aralığına göre listeler'), specifying the verb (list), resource (health reports), and scope (year range). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like enabiz_list_lab_tests or enabiz_list_prescriptions by its resource focus.

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 on usage: it requires authenticated session (indicated by the auth_required error), and explains default behavior for parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though the tool's name and resource specificity imply its appropriate use case.

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