ht_rx_list_prescriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the auth/session prerequisite and, importantly, defines the status vocabulary (refillable, too soon, no refills) that a caller needs to interpret results. With no output schema, the field enumeration also substitutes for a return-value contract. It omits pagination and per-patient grouping behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information: the operation and its return shape first, the session prerequisite second. Every clause carries information an agent needs, since the field list compensates for the missing output 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the status semantics, and the session prerequisite — the core of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps are minor: behavior on expired sessions, whether results are grouped per patient, and any result-size limits, none of which are covered by schema or annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'view' (with its enum and projection semantics) and 'patientNumber' are fully documented in structured fields. The description adds nothing about either parameter — notably it doesn't explain the default all-patients scope that patientNumber overrides — so the baseline 3 applies.

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-plus-resource ('List prescriptions at the Harris Teeter pharmacy') and enumerates the exact payload the caller gets back: drug, Rx number, status, refills remaining, refill due date, last fill, price, prescriber. That level of specificity lets an agent know this is the read path for prescription data within the rx tool family, distinct from ht_rx_request_refill and ht_rx_session.

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 a concrete precondition — 'Needs an active pharmacy session (ht_rx_session)' — naming the sibling that establishes it, which is the key routing decision for this tool family. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., that refills should go through ht_rx_request_refill rather than here), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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