medical_immunity_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'get's levels, implying read-only, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The agent cannot infer the nature of the response.

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 a single sentence that effectively front-loads the key information (standard, scope, inclusion of proximity immunity). It is concise with no extraneous content, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of levels, values, or a table), any prerequisites, or how the optional parameter affects output. The agent lacks sufficient context for correct usage.

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%: the only parameter 'include_proximity' has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so 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 identifies the tool as retrieving IEC 60601-1-2 immunity test levels, specifically for wireless devices near medical equipment, and mentions proximity immunity (Table 9). It distinguishes well from sibling tools that cover other standards like automotive or CISPR.

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 implies use for medical equipment immunity per IEC 60601-1-2, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like automotive_immunity_method or iso11452_levels. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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