bag_health_mcp__list_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the output format 'topic/chapter/aggregation/temporality' and the fact that it returns series IDs for subsequent use. No contradictions.

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, with only necessary information. It is well-structured using <use_case>, <important_notes>, and <example> tags for easy parsing. The main sentence is front-loaded, and every piece of content adds value.

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 an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, usage scenario, and output format. For a simple list tool with one parameter, this is complete.

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%, but the schema itself includes a description for the topic parameter. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by stating the need for a valid slug from list_diseases and demonstrating usage in the example. However, it does not elaborate on constraints like pattern or maxLength.

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 'List all available data series for a specific disease topic', identifying the verb ('list') and resource ('data series'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the returned series IDs are used with other tools, and the example further clarifies the output format.

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 includes a <use_case> explaining when to use this tool ('before fetching data'), and <important_notes> highlighting the prerequisite of a valid topic slug from list_diseases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for agent selection.

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