surgery_dept_schedule_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly marks the operation as a read ('查詢'), discloses the internal ROC date auto-conversion, and states the default date behavior. These are non-obvious traits beyond the schema, though it does not mention permissions or rate limits.

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 a compact docstring with a clear first-line purpose. It includes necessary parameter details, a return reference, and a conversion note, with no filler or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain return values. It says 'Returns: 同 surgery_doc_schedule_list', which is not self-contained and relies on another tool's description. It also lacks explicit usage alternatives. Parameters and conversion are covered, but these gaps make it incomplete for a standalone 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter with an example ('OPH'), the date format and default, and the internal conversion. eip_id and eip_password are not described, but their purpose is self-evident from their names within this auth-required 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 opens with '查詢科別的手術排程' (query department surgery schedule), a specific verb + resource. It explicitly says '科別' (department), distinguishing it from doctor-level sibling surgery_doc_schedule_list, and details the query parameter as a department code.

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?

Usage is implied by the department scope ('科別') and the return-format reference to surgery_doc_schedule_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation. An agent must infer that department-level queries belong here.

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