feegow_get_medical_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Visualiza um laudo' (views a report) and the HTTP method, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any required authentication, side effects (none expected for GET), or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient detail for safe invocation.

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 sentence, concise and free of fluff. It front-loads the category ('[Laudos]') and provides the HTTP endpoint. However, it could be slightly longer to include key usage details without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with minimal description, the tool definition is highly incomplete. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how to properly set parameters, or any constraints (e.g., required parameters). An agent cannot reliably use this tool without external knowledge.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only 'query' described generically), the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the role of 'agendamento_id' or 'procedimento_id', nor how they relate to viewing a medical report. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 verb 'Visualiza' (views) and the resource 'laudo registrado' (registered medical report), and the HTTP GET method is provided. This distinguishes from siblings like list_medical_reports (list) and create_medical_report (create), indicating a specific retrieval operation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_list_medical_reports or feegow_create_medical_report. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer this tool over others.

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