patient_opd_list

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

The description adds some behavioral detail by revealing the return fields and explaining the `old_than_four_years` flag (include records older than 4 years). However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, does not explain the required credentials (`eip_id` and `eip_password`), and omits any mention of pagination, sorting, or error behaviors. Thus it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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 compact and well-structured with distinct Args and Returns sections. Each line serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with a clear summary statement and remains easy to scan.

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 list tool, the description provides the essential return fields and one option, which is adequate for basic usage. However, it leaves out authentication parameters, ordering details, and differentiation from the search-based sibling. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context (e.g., the meaning of `eip_id`/`eip_password`, or an explicit 'use this when you have a hisno') would make it fully complete.

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 covers two of the four parameters: `hisno` and `old_than_four_years`. The required parameters `eip_id` and `eip_password` are completely omitted, and schema coverage is 0%. Since the description is the only source of parameter meaning, the lack of documentation for these credentials is a significant gap. The explanation of `old_than_four_years` is also minimal ('包含 4 年前紀錄') without clarifying default behavior or impact.

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 operation: '取得病人門診清單' (retrieve patient outpatient list), enumerates the expected return fields (date, time, physician, department, diagnosis code), and identifies the key parameter `hisno`. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `patient_opd_list_search`, creating ambiguity about the difference between a direct list fetch versus a search operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or the presence of sibling tools such as `patient_opd_list_search` or `patient_info`. This leaves the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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