doc_opd_patient_list_appointment

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the API requires YYYYMMDD format and auto-converts the input, and it lists returned fields. However, it does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior beyond that.

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?

The description is well-organized into sections (summary, args, returns, example, internal conversion). Every section adds value, and the example is concise and illuminates the intended usage. 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?

The description covers the full workflow, parameter sources, return fields, and internal format conversion. With no output schema, it adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks edge-case notes (e.g., invalid inputs), but for an agent to invoke it correctly, the provided context is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides source and format for date, ect, and room, including examples. However, eip_id and eip_password are not described at all, leaving two required parameters undefined.

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 clearly states '取得醫師特定門診時段的掛號名單' (get registration list for a physician's specific outpatient clinic time slot). It references doc_opd_schedule for inputs, distinguishing it from previous-list and patient-list tools. The verb and resource are specific.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the parameters come from doc_opd_schedule, and a two-step example shows when to invoke this tool. It implies the workflow but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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