get_medications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the status="taking" filtering (stopped meds are excluded) and a behavioral guardrail against dose-change advice. It does not discuss ordering, counts, or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of 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?

Scope and field list are front-loaded, then the safety rule, then the sibling routing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the trailing sibling list is compressed into a single readable sentence set, though it borders on enumeration for its own sake.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations plus an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, the required follow-up call, the safety constraint, and where the write operations live.

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 the baseline is 4; the description instead documents what the result objects contain (name, dose, unit, times per day, route, product type), which is useful framing even though an output schema exists.

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 resource (medications and supplements) with an explicit scope filter (only entries with status "taking") and enumerates the fields returned. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like record_medication, update_medication, and check_medication_safety.

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?

Explicitly names when to call it (before any medication question), the mandatory follow-up (check_medication_safety), a hard constraint (never suggest dose changes), and routes the add/fix/stop cases to the three sibling tools by name. No inference required.

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