get_diagnoses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say whether all diagnoses are returned or how they are scoped, ordered, or paginated. The only extra signal is that records carry two status axes, which is output detail the output schema likely covers.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, which is appropriately sized. But the second sentence is cryptic and ambiguous — 'Advice' and 'in question' are not standard status labels — so it does not clearly earn its place alongside the schema.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description is not required to explain return values, and the read-only annotations cover safety. It is still incomplete in an important respect: it never states the scope of the result set (all diagnoses for the user?), leaving the agent unable to predict what it will receive.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description makes no misleading claims about inputs, though it also has no parameters to clarify.

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?

Names the resource (diagnoses) and one of its key attributes (the clinical_status + verification_status axes), which partly distinguishes it from siblings like get_medications and get_allergies. However, it never states the action — no verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' — so the agent must infer it is a read operation for the user's 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?

The second sentence reads as a gloss on status values ('Advice — only on confirmed; suspected — in question') rather than guidance on when to call this tool. There is no indication of when to prefer it over get_health_summary, get_timeline, or query_observations, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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