mah_list_health_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the semantic clarification that this is the *current* problem list, and says nothing about scoping to the active patient, ordering, volume, 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its plain-language gloss are both delivered immediately.

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, annotation-covered, single-parameter read with no output schema, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly, and the schema fully covers response shaping. Only the routing question (versus sibling readers) remains unanswered.

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 exhaustively documented in the schema itself, including which readers honor the field projection. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (problem list / current health issues), and usefully glosses the clinical term 'problem list' so an agent unfamiliar with EHR vocabulary knows what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling readers (mah_get_health_summary, mah_list_medications, etc.), so sibling differentiation is left to the name.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With ~10 sibling list_* readers, the agent must infer from the name alone that this one is for active problems rather than for the summary, allergies, or visit history.

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