surgery_schedule_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the prerequisite (link_url from a list tool) and enumerating the exact return fields. It does not mention read-only status or error conditions, but the detail-retrieval nature is implied and the output list is valuable.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a prerequisite sentence, and a clean list of return fields. No unnecessary content; every sentence earns its place.

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 detail-fetch tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the key workflow and output expectations. Missing details about authentication parameters, but overall it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only explains link_url (how to obtain it), but eip_id and eip_password are not addressed at all. This leaves the agent without semantic meaning for two of the three required parameters.

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 retrieves detailed surgery information (取得手術詳細資訊) and lists the specific return fields, making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by requiring a link_url obtained from surgery_*_schedule_list.

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?

Explicitly instructs to first get link_url from surgery_*_schedule_list before using this tool, providing a clear workflow and distinguishing when to use this detail tool versus the list tools. This is strong usage guidance.

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