Analyze lab trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'descriptive trend stats' implying aggregated statistics, but does not detail what those stats are (e.g., mean, slope). Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal context.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structure or additional helpful details like parameter explanations, making it borderline too brief for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented externally. The description is minimal but covers the core action. Given sibling tools and the need for filtering, it might not fully inform the agent about usage scope. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'analyte'. The other parameters (user, since, until) are not explained at all. The schema provides their names and types, but their purpose and accepted formats are not clarified.

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 returns 'descriptive trend stats for numeric lab results for one analyte'. The verb 'return' and resource 'lab results' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_biomarker_trend' or 'analyze_trend' that may handle similar data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions such as requiring numeric data or a sufficient number of results. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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