mah_list_immunizations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds 'grouped by organization', but does not explain pagination, return shape, permission requirements, or what 'organization' means in this context. With annotations handling safety, the bar is lower, but the description still misses useful behavioral details like whether results are filtered by patient.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when this data is relevant, whether it requires an active patient, and any caveats about grouping or pagination. The absence of an output schema increases the need for some return-shape hints, which are missing.

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%, so the 'view' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb + resource: 'List immunizations and administration dates, grouped by organization.' This specifies both what is returned and how it's grouped. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like mah_list_medications or mah_list_allergies, which share the 'list' pattern, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context (e.g., that this is for a given patient's immunization history).

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