get_diagnoses

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds important interpretive behavior: the two status axes and the instruction to base advice only on confirmed diagnoses, present suspected/provisional as open questions, and ignore refuted ones. It does not discuss operational details such as pagination, auth, or data freshness, but output schema likely covers return fields.

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 three tight sentences: purpose and data model first, interpretation guidance second, sibling differentiation last. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the status lists are useful without being bloated.

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 a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the domain semantics, status handling rules, and alternative sibling. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly use the tool without further inference.

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 input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The schema is fully empty and no description compensation is needed, matching the baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool.

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 states exactly what is returned: all recorded diagnoses with clinical_status, verification_status, date, and ICD-10 code. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_health_summary, which only briefly includes active diagnoses.

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?

It gives a direct when-to-use rule: 'Use this for "what am I diagnosed with"' and names get_health_summary as the alternative for a brief active-only view. It also provides clear handling guidance for confirmed, suspected/provisional, and refuted diagnoses.

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