lookup_wait_time

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 states that waits are in whole weeks, data is updated weekly, found=false is returned when the trust/specialty is not held, and that the agent must not invent a figure. These are material behaviors beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose and source, units, parameter formatting, not-found behavior, and the sibling-tool distinction. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers source, freshness, units, input formatting, missing-data behavior, and the key alternative tool, leaving no significant gap for an agent to resolve.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining that provider should be 'the trust name as published' with an example, and specialty should be like 'Cardiology' — also clarifying the name-based identifier, which is essential for correct use.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the latest reported waiting time for one NHS trust and specialty from My Planned Care.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from wait_time_trend by noting the trust is identified by name here rather than by RTT provider code.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with wait_time_trend, stating that lookup_wait_time uses the trust name while wait_time_trend uses an RTT provider code. This gives the agent a concrete basis for choosing between the two alternatives.

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