lookup_hl7_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the return payload ('Returns the table name and all defined values with descriptions'), which is critical given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits like whether the operation is idempotent, cached, or if there are rate limits.

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 extremely tight: one sentence for the action, one for the return value, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place. There is no redundancy with the schema or unnecessary verbosity.

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 this is a simple single-parameter lookup tool without an output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing the return structure. It does not need to explain complex nested objects or error scenarios. For its complexity level, the description is complete, though usage guidelines would improve it.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage and already documents the table_number format (including examples like '0001'), the description adds valuable semantic context by specifying that Table 0001 corresponds to 'Administrative Sex.' This helps the agent understand what kind of data these tables contain beyond just the numeric identifier.

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 'Look[s] up HL7 table values' with a specific verb and resource type. It distinguishes itself from DICOM siblings (lookup_dicom_tag) and other HL7 siblings (explain_hl7_segment, parse_hl7_message) by focusing on 'tables' rather than segments or messages. The example (Table 0001 = Administrative Sex) clarifies the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_hl7_segment (which explains segment definitions) or other lookup tools. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing a valid HL7 table number, or when to prefer this over parsing a message directly.

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