enabiz_list_vaccinations

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

The description matches annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by stating 'salt-okunur' and explains the truncated flag behavior. It also discloses the auth requirement and error response for missing auth. No contradictions and adds useful context beyond 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 (3 sentences plus bullet), every sentence carries value. Front-loaded with purpose and read-only nature, followed by param details in logical order. No wasted words.

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 output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential behavioral details: auth requirement, filtering, pagination behavior, and truncation. It is complete for a list tool with 2 optional parameters.

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 carries the full burden. It explains query as case-insensitive filter on vaccine name, limit with default 50, 0=unlimited, and the truncated flag. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema's basic 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 the E-Nabız vaccination schedule (aşı takvimi) and explicitly marks it as read-only (salt-okunur). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle different health data like allergies, appointments, etc.

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 specifies prerequisites: requires an authenticated session (Kimlikli oturum gerektirir) and explains behavior for limit and query parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other list tools, though the broader sibling context makes it clear.

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