Add a lab report

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, which the description implicitly supports by saying 'store' and 'add' (creation). The description adds workflow context (add results separately) but no further behavioral details like side effects or constraints.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds key guidance about results.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain parameter relationships, date formats, or provide enough context for correct usage, even though an output schema exists.

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%, and the description does not describe any of the 10 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond parameter names, leaving agents to infer semantics from names alone.

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 it stores metadata for a lab/bloodwork report, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from add_lab_result by noting that individual results should be added separately, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for report metadata and that results are added via a separate tool, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or provide when-to-use/not-use guidance. It offers minimal explicit context.

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