list_clinical_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (list of dicts with specific keys) and the scope (all clinical documents), but it does not mention edge cases like empty results, pagination, ordering, or whether the list is system-wide.

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?

Two sentences, both informative: the first states purpose and scope, the second describes the return value. No filler or redundant 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, examples of document types, and the returned fields. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to elaborate return values further, though a note about bulk output or pagination would make it fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies; no ambiguity exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clinical documents') with concrete examples of included types (imaging, cardiology, pathology). The 'List all' phrasing clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool get_clinical_document, which implies retrieving a single document.

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 its usage: use it to enumerate all clinical documents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as 'use get_clinical_document for a specific document,' nor does it address potential overlap with list_exam_results or list_prescriptions.

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