get_allergies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral constraint ('always call before drug interaction check') and implies read-only behavior. Although it doesn't address permissions or side effects, the tool is inherently low-risk (fetching allergies) and the description suffices.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 that there are no parameters, an output schema exists (though not provided), and the tool is simple retrieval, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, when to call, and ordering relative to related tools.

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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none, and it correctly avoids redundant information.

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 starts with 'Returns all recorded allergies for the patient' which clearly states the verb ('returns') and the resource ('all recorded allergies for the patient'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_drug_interaction by specifying that it provides allergy context before drug interaction checks.

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 explicitly lists when to call this tool: when the user asks about known allergies, drug allergies, or allergic reactions, and states 'Always call this before performing a drug interaction check so allergy context is available.'

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