Add a lab result

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 is consistent with 'Store'. However, the description adds little beyond that—it mentions that numeric values can be trended, which is a future capability, not a behavioral trait. No further details on safety, permissions, side effects, or error conditions are given.

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 long with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it could be more structured with bullet points for parameter hints, but that would increase length.

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's complexity (13 parameters, 2 required) and zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required parameters, optional ones, value constraints, or how to use them. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not leverage it to reduce the burden.

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%, meaning the schema itself provides no explanations for the 13 parameters (including required 'analyte' and 'value'). The description offers no guidance on what these parameters mean, their format, or usage, leaving the agent completely uninformed about how to fill in the required and optional fields.

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 tool's purpose: storing one lab or bloodwork result. It uses specific verbs ('Store') and resource ('lab/bloodwork result'), and the mention of numeric values being trendable helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'add_lab_report' (which handles reports) and 'analyze_lab_trend' (which analyzes trends).

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 individual lab results versus whole reports, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_lab_report' or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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