mah_list_allergies

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries less burden. It adds only the sourcing/scope detail ('from the health summary') and says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no allergies are recorded.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead, the source qualifier trails. Nothing to trim.

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 simple reader with one optional enum param and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned content (allergies and their reactions). It stops short of noting the auth/active-patient context implied by sibling tools like mah_set_active_patient and mah_auth_status.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (view) with full schema description coverage, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the compact/full distinction beyond what the schema spells out.

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) plus the resource (allergies and their reactions) and its source (MyAtriumHealth health summary). The resource is distinct from every sibling (medications, immunizations, health_issues), so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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: read this when you need allergy information. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites such as an active patient or auth state, and no routing away from a broader alternative like 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.