list_allergies

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself, such as return format, pagination, filtering details, or what happens when no allergies are found. 'List' implies a read operation, but no safety or side-effect context is provided.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need to be explained. However, the description is incomplete for a tool with an unexplained required parameter and no usage guidance. The phrase 'launch patient' is ambiguous without context, and the role of 'practice' is entirely omitted, leaving the description insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 one required parameter, 'practice', with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving a critical gap. The agent cannot infer what 'practice' means or how it affects the listing from the description.

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 and specifically states the action ('List'), the resource type ('AllergyIntolerance'), and the scope ('for the launch patient'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_immunizations and list_problems by naming the exact FHIR resource and patient context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fhir_search or other list tools. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it differs from searching AllergyIntolerance resources. The phrase 'for the launch patient' implies a context but does not offer exclusions or alternative tools.

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