patient_drug_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (日期, 日期_iso, 類別, 科別, caseno, dt, type, dept, dt1) and the linkage to patient_drug_content. It does not mention side effects or errors, but the read-only nature is implied by '取得', making this adequate for a simple list retrieval.

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 concise, with a clear title statement, a structured 'Returns:' section listing fields, and a brief 'Note:' for cross-tool usage. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description helpfully lists return fields and explains how to proceed to patient_drug_content. It covers the essential workflow for an agent to invoke the tool and use its output. However, it omits details like date formats, authentication prerequisites, or pagination, leaving minor gaps for a simple list tool.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The parameter names (eip_id, eip_password, hisno) convey some meaning but leave ambiguity about authentication flow and the exact format of hisno. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, this dimension is weak.

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 starts with '取得病人用藥清單' (get patient medication list), which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like patient_drug_content (list vs. details) and other patient list tools by explicitly focusing on medication.

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 '返回的參數可用於 patient_drug_content 取得用藥詳情' provides clear context: use this tool to obtain a list of medication records whose parameters can then feed into patient_drug_content for details. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus all siblings, it gives a concrete workflow context, which is more than implied usage.

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