Vaccinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and non-exhaustiveness. The description effectively goes beyond annotations by disclosing the ordering (newest first) and the specific fields returned (vaccine, date, who gave it, coverage duration). It also hints at the openWorld nature by saying 'Every registered vaccination' and mentioning 'how long it covers', which adds behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that pack in the purpose, key output fields, ordering, and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded. It avoids any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what will be in the result and how it's ordered, and explains how to get more detail (via get_vaccination). It doesn't specify the return format (e.g., is it an array?), but with no output schema, that might be acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add beyond the schema. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool deserves a baseline of 4. The description does not attempt to describe parameters, which is appropriate; it focuses on output semantics, which is useful.

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's purpose: listing all registered vaccinations, ordered newest first, with details on vaccine, date, administrator, and coverage. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_vaccination' by explicitly naming it and noting the difference (get_vaccination uses a VaccinationIdentifier for disease-specific info). It doesn't fully specify that it's a read-only list operation, but the verb and resource are clear.

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 implies when to use this tool: to get an overview of all vaccinations, vs. get_vaccination for specific disease protection details. It mentions using VaccinationIdentifier with get_vaccination, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusions such as 'use this only when you need the complete list'.

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