doc_opd_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists return fields and gives a workflow note, but does not explicitly state authentication needs (though params imply credentials), side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied by '取得' but not stated.

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-structured with a concise main sentence, a Returns block, and a Note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every line earns its place. The field list is necessary given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has no output schema, so the explicit Returns list partially compensates. The workflow note adds useful integration context. However, the description lacks details on sorting, filtering, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity for a list-fetching operation.

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?

The description completely omits the two parameters (eip_id, eip_password), and the schema description coverage is 0%. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, it fails to do so. The schema titles 'Eip Id' and 'Eip Password' are self-descriptive but the description adds no additional value or context.

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 the tool's function: retrieving a list of a doctor's future outpatient appointment dates. The Returns section enumerates the specific fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the note hints at a workflow connection.

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 Note explicitly instructs the user that the returned fields can be used with doc_opd_patient_list_appointment to obtain the appointment list, providing a clear usage context. It does not, however, specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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