Teladoc MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying safety, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data format, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for a tool accessing sensitive health data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of accessing prescription history (sensitive data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('prescription history from Teladoc'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_visit_history', but the resource specificity is adequate for a 4.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_visit_history' or other sibling tools. The description lacks context about use cases or prerequisites, offering minimal direction.

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