feegow_list_prescriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a GET operation (read-only) but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the structure of the response. The description is too minimal for safe use.

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 (plus code comment) with no extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 list tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what data is returned, if pagination exists, if paciente_id is required despite not being in required parameters, or how the 'query' parameter is used. Missing crucial context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'query' has a description, 'paciente_id' has none). The tool description does not add any parameter info or context beyond the schema. For a 2-parameter tool, this leaves the agent underinformed, especially about the crucial paciente_id.

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 prescriptions of a patient's medical record, specifying the resource (prescriptions) and context (patient's medical record). It includes the HTTP method and path, adding clarity. Among sibling tools, no other prescription-listing alternative exists, so no differentiation needed.

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 usage for listing prescriptions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., need paciente_id), or when not to use it. The choice is straightforward given no other prescription tools, but contextual cues are missing.

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