explain_dicom_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds by disclosing specific content domains: vendor-specific quirks (Philips, GE, Siemens), common values, related tags, and gotchas. This gives the agent clear expectations about the explanation's scope and depth.

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?

Single, dense sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. Every clause (vendor quirks, gotchas, related tags) earns its place by differentiating the tool's output. Slightly information-dense but efficient for the complexity described.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by qualitatively describing the detailed explanation content. It appropriately focuses on what the explanation contains rather than structural return values.

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 coverage is 100% ('DICOM tag identifier (number or keyword)'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description references the tag implicitly but does not add syntax examples, format specifications, or validation rules beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed explanation of a DICOM tag') with clear scope. Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'lookup_dicom_tag' by emphasizing depth (vendor quirks, gotchas, context) versus simple lookup.

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?

Provides clear context about the richness of returned information (vendor quirks, common values, gotchas) which implies when to use it (for deep understanding/troubleshooting). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, though the content description makes the distinction clear.

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