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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying Engine API mapping (GET /lab_tests/{id}), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about the response shape, behavior on an unknown id, or how the optional age/model context alters results.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Nothing here is redundant or padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the burden of describing what comes back falls on the description, and it does not address return values at all. For a simple by-id fetch alongside a fully documented schema this is adequate but leaves the result shape and the effect of the optional age/model context unexplained.

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 100%, so id, age.value, age.unit, dev_mode, and model_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single lab test') and keys it to the identifier, which implicitly separates it from the list_lab_tests sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'by its id' implies this is the lookup path when an id is already known, versus listing or searching. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like infermedica_list_lab_tests or infermedica_search_concepts, and no exclusions.

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