hcp_list_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only list operation and enumerates filter dimensions, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, how filters combine, or default limiting behavior beyond what the schema exposes.

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 with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact list of filters. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler 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?

For a tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core intent and filter vocabulary but omits output format, pagination/limit behavior, and filter-combination semantics. It is minimally adequate for invoking the tool correctly, with clear gaps left to schema defaults and agent inference.

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 only 43%, but the description adds practical meaning to several otherwise undocumented parameters: it identifies region, interaction_type, and since_days ('how many days back') as filters. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both the description and the schema's prose, though its default and bounds are present.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'rep-HCP interactions', explicitly enumerating interaction types (visits, calls, emails). This makes it immediately distinct from siblings like hcp_list_hcps, which lists HCPs, and hcp_engagement_summary, which suggests an aggregate view.

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 when raw interaction records are needed and lists the available filters, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. An agent must infer from sibling names that summary/aggregate tools are more appropriate for engagement totals or trends.

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