surgery_doc_schedule_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the internal conversion to 民國 format and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any side effects, though '查詢' implies query-only.

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 uses a structured format (Args, Returns, Internal conversion) and is front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but includes necessary details; the internal conversion note is valuable.

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 includes return fields and the date conversion behavior, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits explanations for the auth parameters and does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., list vs object, pagination). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' as doctor lamp number and 'date' as YYYY-MM-DD with blank meaning today. However, it does not explain 'eip_id' or 'eip_password', which are required and undocumented.

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 '查詢醫師的手術排程' (query doctor's surgery schedule), specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on a doctor (醫師) rather than department or detail, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides parameter usage (e.g., doctor lamp number, date format) but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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