insync_list_allergies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that reactions accompany each allergy record, which is real content beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about scoping to the current patient, pagination, or empty-result behavior — notable given openWorldHint=true.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the returned payload front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name alone, since 'and their reactions' carries new information.

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 single-parameter list tool with a fully documented enum and no output schema, the description tells the agent what records and what associated detail come back. The remaining gap is patient scoping — whether this returns the authenticated user's allergies or accepts another patient context — which the description leaves unstated.

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% and the single 'view' enum is documented in detail, including what each of compact/full/raw returns, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema is this complete.

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 ('List') and resource ('the patient's recorded allergies and their reactions'), which cleanly separates it from sibling list tools like insync_list_medications or insync_list_refill_requests. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the read path for allergy data, but there is no statement of when to prefer it, whether it applies to the authenticated patient only, or what to do if the list is empty. No alternatives or exclusions are offered.

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