mah_list_allergies

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 elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it doesn't mention the auth/active-patient prerequisite that this multi-tool health portal clearly has (mah_sign_in, mah_set_active_patient), nor ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema and clear auth/patient-context dependencies in this tool family, the omission of any prerequisite or result-shape note leaves a real gap.

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 exhaustive detail in the schema, including the fact that this tool is one of the projection-derived readers. Baseline 3 is correct: the description adds nothing about "view" or record shaping.

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?

Concrete verb ("List") plus a specific resource (allergies and their reactions) and an explicit data source (the MyAtriumHealth health summary). An agent can distinguish it at a glance from most siblings such as mah_list_medications or mah_list_immunizations, though no sibling is named and the overlap with mah_get_health_summary is not addressed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g., signed-in / active-patient requirement) and no alternative named. The only hint is the phrase "from the MyAtriumHealth health summary," which just restates the source rather than telling the agent when this reader is the right choice over mah_get_health_summary.

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