mah_list_care_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that results are aggregated across linked outside organizations, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or dependency on an active patient selection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the resource, the returned fields, and the scope with no wasted words.

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 else-read with annotations covering safety, one fully documented optional parameter, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs. The main omission is any mention of the prerequisite patient/auth context implied by siblings like mah_set_active_patient.

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' parameter carries an exhaustive enum explanation in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about the compact/full projection choice.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List care team providers') and enumerates the fields returned (name, specialty, relationship) plus the scope (this organization and linked outside organizations). That scope statement distinguishes it from other mah_list_* readers, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 resource name — there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative like mah_get_health_summary or mah_get_patient_context. The note that results span the organization and linked outside organizations is useful scoping context but not routing guidance.

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