pacs_query

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds crucial behavioral context: the 50-result limit, '[Premium]' tier indicator, and underlying protocols (C-FIND/QIDO-RS). However, it omits safety disclosure (read-only nature), authentication requirements, and what the results contain given no output schema exists.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the '[Premium]' tag and primary purpose. Four sentences efficiently convey scope, filters, limits, and implementation details. Minor redundancy in listing all filter fields that are already well-documented in the schema, but this aids scannability.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input capabilities but only minimally addresses return values ('Returns up to 50 results' without describing structure or fields). Given the medical domain complexity, it should describe the return format or study/series object structure since no output schema compensates.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description lists the available filters but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., date format YYYYMMDD is documented in both). No additional parameter syntax or examples are provided.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches PACS for studies or series with specific filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pacs_retrieve' or 'pacs_study_summary', though the verb 'Search' implies read-only query vs. retrieval.

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 implied usage through the specific mention of C-FIND/QIDO-RS protocols (query operations) which distinguishes it from retrieval operations. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'pacs_retrieve', 'pacs_get_metadata', or 'pacs_study_summary' for users unfamiliar with DICOM protocol differences.

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