get-structured-report-text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that it retrieves and converts SR to text and does not retrieve images. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (none expected for read), permissions needed, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is truthful but minimal for full transparency.

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 two sentences long, with the first stating the core action and result, and the second providing prerequisites and exclusions. Every sentence is informative and necessary. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple retrieval tool with fully-described required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it needs, and what it doesn't do. Minor gaps exist, such as not specifying the output encoding or format, but these are acceptable given the simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including format and examples. The tool description merely restates that UIDs are required, adding no new semantic insight beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retrieves and converts', the resource 'Structured Report instance', and the output 'human-readable text'. It also explicitly mentions what it does not do (retrieve image data), distinguishing it from sibling tools like render-instance-frame. This provides high purpose clarity.

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 explains the prerequisite: 'Requires Study, Series, and SOP Instance UIDs from find-structured-reports.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what inputs are needed. It also clarifies that it does not retrieve images, guiding the agent away from using it for image data. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so a slight deduction applies.

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