LOINC Answer Lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about the applicability restriction (only LOINC codes with defined answer sets), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format, but an output schema exists, so that burden is reduced.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence summary, three bullet use cases, and one clarifying constraint. No filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains highly scannable.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter), strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and the applicable input scope. No critical information appears missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema covers 100% of parameter information: the loinc_num parameter has a pattern and an example description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Get the list of valid answers for a LOINC questionnaire item.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like loinc_search (search) and loinc_details (details), and the following bullets reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 valid response options', 'Get answer codes', 'Look up standardized answer lists') and includes a key constraint: 'Only applicable to LOINC codes that represent questions with defined answer sets.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraint implies when not to use it, and sibling tool names provide context.

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