map_dicom_to_hl7

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return structure ('HL7 segment.field, mapping notes, and data type conversions') which is valuable without output schema, but omits safety properties (read-only status, idempotency) and operational constraints.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose '[Premium] Map...' followed immediately by return value specification. Every clause delivers distinct value (operation, domain, return structure).

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 specialized medical informatics tool without output schema, adequately describes return values. Single parameter is well-documented in schema. Minor gap: [Premium] flag hints at access constraints but description doesn't elaborate on authentication or rate limiting implications.

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 has 100% description coverage with examples ('0010,0010' or 'PatientName'). Description mentions 'DICOM tags' generally but does not augment parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Specific verb ('Map') with clear resources ('DICOM tags', 'HL7 v2 fields') and explicit scope. Distinguishes from sibling explain_dicom_tag (explains vs maps) and map_hl7_to_fhir (different source/target standards).

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 domain context (DICOM-to-HL7 mapping) that implies usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like explain_dicom_tag or lookup_dicom_tag. No 'when-not' exclusions mentioned.

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