List supported analytes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (display name, canonical unit, full unit set) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects. For a listing tool, this is adequate and adds specific behavioral details beyond simply saying 'list analytes.'

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, front-loaded sentence that packs necessary information without waste. It states the action, scope, and return fields efficiently.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and for what purpose. It covers the essential info an agent needs to use it correctly, and no additional context about pagination or ordering is required for a tool of this nature.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description correctly avoids inventing any. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so nothing is missing.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('every analyte this server can convert') and specifies the returned fields (display name, canonical unit, full unit set). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_lab_value and identify_analyte, which handle conversion and identification rather than listing.

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 the tool is used when you need a comprehensive list of convertible analytes and their units, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context signals include sibling names, but the description itself lacks direct comparison or exclusion statements.

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