get_aed_waiting_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It notes 'current' waiting times, indicating real-time data, but provides no details about update frequency, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope without any redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose and scope completely; no additional context about return values or prerequisites is necessary for typical use.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'lang' with an enum, default, and description, covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'Accident and Emergency Department waiting times', and the geographic scope 'by hospital in Hong Kong'. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_specialist_waiting_times, which focus on specialist waits.

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 only states what the tool does; it does not explicitly mention when to use it or compare with alternatives. While the purpose implies usage for AED wait times, no direct guidance is given about when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools.

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