LabTestSuperstore

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that data is public and appointment availability is not claimed, but it omits return format, pagination, or other operational details.

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 short sentences communicate the primary action and an important caveat with no filler or redundancy. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

With six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, a single sentence plus caveat is insufficient. The description lacks detail on result contents, filter combination rules, state handling, and pagination/limit behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description names four of six parameters (city, ZIP, provider, access) as filters. It does not explain 'state' or 'limit' semantics, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 ('filter') and names the resource ('public state location shard') along with filter dimensions (city, ZIP, provider, access). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on location lookup and explicitly disclaiming appointment availability.

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?

It clearly states that this tool filters public locations and should not be used for appointment availability checks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide broader when-not-to-use guidance beyond the availability caveat.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond these: the data is 'unreviewed' and 'context-only', and it does not interpret results or provide medical advice. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's limitations without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a critical disclaimer. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides no parameter guidance, no return format explanation, and no details on how the tool behaves beyond 'returns comparisons'. The safety annotations help, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke the tool with the right inputs and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. However, the description does not mention age, sex, unit, limit, marker, or source at all. It only offers the vague phrase 'range source comparisons', which does not clarify what each parameter means or how they interact. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('range source comparisons') with meaningful qualifiers ('unreviewed, context-only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_locations and search_tests, which have different purposes.

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 for context-only lookups and explicitly warns against using it for interpretation or medical advice, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. The exclusion of medical advice is a helpful boundary, but no direct comparison to alternatives is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing that results include 'dated offers and unmodified affiliate tracking fields', which is useful behavioral context about the output beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, immediately states the action and resource, and avoids superfluous words. Every clause adds meaningful information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not adequately explain parameter meanings or the full return format. It only partially covers return values (offers and tracking fields), leaving users uncertain about filtering options and response structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameter details. It only implies 'query' through 'Search', leaving limit, atHome, category, and sampleType undocumented. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('the public test catalog'), and specifies return characteristics ('source records with dated offers and unmodified affiliate tracking fields'). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_locations and get_range_context.

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 gives clear context that this searches a public catalog, implying its use for finding tests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since the purpose is fairly obvious, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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