get_labs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: label resolution against d_labitems can yield multiple candidates, and the error will list them, enabling a retry. This adds genuine value beyond a generic description.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a valuable behavioral detail without excess, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core purpose and the label resolution nuance, but given four parameters and no schema descriptions, it fails to explain the role of subject_id and the exact usage of window_start and window_end. An output schema exists, so return values need no description, but parameter clarity is lacking.

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. It mentions 'label' and 'windowed by date' but never names or explains subject_id, window_start, or window_end. An agent cannot infer which parameter maps to the patient or how the window parameters are formatted, reducing the description's utility for parameter construction.

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 verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('lab results for one patient and one lab test'), and the optional date window. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_patients, get_admissions, and aggregate, which focus on other aspects.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is self-evident for lab results, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the sibling names.

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