feegow_list_medical_transfers

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Basic purpose is stated but lacks 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?

Extremely concise, one sentence with category and endpoint. Front-loaded with purpose. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, single vague parameter. Missing details on return format, pagination, sorting, or required filters. Incomplete for effective use without additional 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 single parameter 'query' is described as a catch-all for additional parameters, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't list acceptable keys or expected values, leaving the agent guessing.

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 lists medical transfers ('Lista os repasses de médicos') and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_list_invoices by specifying 'medical transfers', but could be more explicit about what 'repasses' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools (e.g., feegow_list_invoices, feegow_list_vouchers). No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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