Teladoc MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the 'summaries' take. For a tool accessing potentially sensitive medical history, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that gets straight to the point without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'past visit history' encompasses to improve clarity.

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 medical history tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., dates, providers, diagnoses, summaries format), whether there are privacy restrictions, or how results are structured. Given the sensitivity of medical data and lack of structured context, more completeness is needed.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 'Get past visit history and summaries' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('past visit history and summaries'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'list_appointments' or 'get_prescriptions' that might also retrieve historical medical data, leaving some ambiguity about scope differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify if this is for comprehensive history, recent visits only, or how it differs from 'list_appointments' which might show scheduled visits. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusion criteria.

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