get_specialist_waiting_times

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is retrieved and does not mention side effects, data update frequency, pagination, or any limitations. The verb "Get" implies read-only, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, compact sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and scope. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the domain (specialist outpatient), the booking type (new case), and the geographic scope (Hong Kong). The only minor gap is the mention of "by specialty and cluster" without a parameter to filter them, which could be ambiguous, though the schema clarifies that only language is configurable.

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 only parameter 'lang' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra semantics or usage details about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 uses the specific verb "Get" and clearly identifies the resource: "waiting times for new case bookings for specialist outpatient services." It also specifies the scope "by specialty and cluster in Hong Kong," which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_aed_waiting_times (emergency) and get_pas_gopc_avg_quota (general outpatient).

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 clear context by specifying it is for "new case bookings for specialist outpatient services," which implies it is not for emergency or general outpatient settings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of fully guiding the agent 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.