loinc_answers

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already declare safety and idempotency. The description adds the behavioral constraint of applicability only to question-type LOINC codes with defined answer sets, which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with three bullet points for use cases and one constraint sentence. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, use cases, and applicability. For a simple lookup tool, this is complete; however, a slight mention of answer code structure could improve clarity, but not essential.

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 parameter 'loinc_num' is well-described in the schema (with example). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Get the list of valid answers for a LOINC questionnaire item', specifying verb and resource. It also lists use cases (find valid response options, get answer codes, look up standardized lists). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like loinc_details, though the uniqueness is implied by the focus on answers versus details or panels.

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 provides explicit use cases (Find, Get, Look up) and a constraint ('Only applicable to LOINC codes that represent questions with defined answer sets'). It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context rather than giving explicit exclusions.

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