mah_list_immunizations

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. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that results are grouped by organization — but says nothing about auth requirements, whether records span multiple patients, or result volume/pagination.

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 with no filler; the resource and grouping behavior come first. It is well sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it could have spent one more clause on scope without bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does name the key fields (immunizations, administration dates, organization grouping). However, it omits patient scoping and pagination/volume, which are material for an open-world read tool in a multi-patient server.

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 `view` parameter is documented in exceptional detail, including the specific projection behavior for mah_list_immunizations. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 for schema-does-the-work 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 and resource ("List immunizations") and adds the payload shape ("administration dates, grouped by organization"), which distinguishes it from sibling readers like mah_list_medications or mah_list_allergies. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough for an agent to select correctly.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. It never says, for example, whether this returns the active patient's records or all patients', which is a real ambiguity given siblings like mah_set_active_patient and mah_list_patients. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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