feegow_patient_exam_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The HTTP method (GET) is mentioned in parentheses, which implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated for the agent.

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 extremely concise: a single line with the category, action, and resource, plus the HTTP path. Every word is informative. However, it could be slightly more descriptive about the required patient ID 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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for effective use. It does not clarify what the response contains, how to use the optional date range filters, or the meaning of the 'query' parameter. The date format discrepancy is also confusing.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema; it does not explain the 'query' object parameter or the inconsistent date formats between data_inicio (dd-mm-yyyy) and data_fim (yyyy-mm-dd).

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 explicitly states the verb 'Lista' (lists), the resource 'pedidos de exames' (exam requests), and the entity 'paciente' (patient). It also includes the HTTP GET method and endpoint path, making the purpose unmistakable. Among many siblings, this tool is clearly distinguished as the one for listing a patient's exam requests.

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, no exclusion criteria, and no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a patient ID). It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the tool name and endpoint.

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