loinc_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (e.g., component, property, timing, system, scale type, method). No contradictions. Bar lowered by annotations, and description enriches understanding.

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 three short paragraphs: purpose, use cases, and input format. Each sentence adds value, no waste. Front-loaded with the main action. Perfectly concise.

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 simple input (one parameter), rich annotations indicating safety, and existence of output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary information. It explains what the tool returns and the required input format. No gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'loinc_num', with pattern and description. The description adds example format 'XXXXX-X' and a concrete example ('2339-0 for Glucose'), which goes beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, so a 4 is justified.

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 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'a specific LOINC code'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like loinc_search (which searches for codes) and loinc_panels (which lists panel members) by focusing on details of a single 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 provides explicit use cases like getting the full name, description, component, etc. It implies usage when a specific LOINC number is available, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. Given the clarity of context, it earns a 4.

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