get_allergies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety of the operation is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context — the fail-safe rule that unverified allergies must be treated as real and never dismissed as 'unverified' — which materially changes how an agent should act on results. It does not cover pagination or ordering, hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the safety-critical constraint, then usage and the sibling route. Three sentences, each carrying distinct and necessary information with no filler.

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?

Return values are enumerated in the output schema, so the description doesn't need to restate them in depth. With annotations covering the read-only nature and the description covering usage, routing, and the fail-safe semantic, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field list refers to returned data (documented by the output schema), not inputs, so no parameter meaning is needed or provided.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (all recorded allergies) and enumerates the fields returned (allergen, reaction, severity, verified). It also names the sibling record_allergy as the write counterpart, so an agent can distinguish read from write without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use before any discussion of foods or medications') and an explicit alternative with its own use case ('to add one use record_allergy'). Both when-to-use and the routing to the sibling are stated outright.

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