Search LOINC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the return format (names, components, properties) but does not disclose additional behavioral characteristics beyond the annotations. With strong annotations, the description's minimal extra disclosure is acceptable. Score 3.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main statement, bulleted use cases, and a return summary. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant fluff. Score 5.

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 straightforward search tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key use cases and return content. It could benefit from a note about when to use related LOINC tools, but that is a usage-guideline nuance rather than a completeness gap. Given the low complexity and adequate annotations/schema, the description is sufficiently complete. Score 4.

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 already documents both parameters (query and max_results) with clear descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 the tool's function: searching LOINC for laboratory tests, clinical observations, and measurements. It gives concrete use cases and specifies what it returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this search tool from sibling LOINC tools like loinc_details or loinc_answers, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'Use this tool to' section provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool, such as finding LOINC codes for lab tests, clinical measurements, and diagnostic observations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear. Score 4.

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