list_prescriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that expired prescriptions are excluded by default via the 'include_expired' argument, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like ordering, scope, or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a structured Args section for the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary content.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context on scope (e.g., patient vs. all prescriptions), return format, or prerequisites, and no annotations exist to fill the gap. The sibling tools suggest a clinical context, but this isn't stated.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and default, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining 'include_expired' as 'Include expired prescriptions', which adds meaning beyond the schema. It's clear but not rich.

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 'Return prescriptions list' clearly identifies the action (return) and the resource (prescriptions list), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_prescription, which implies a different operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context (e.g., patient scope, auth requirements) or exclusions. The parameter description implies default behavior but doesn't state usage scenarios.

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