loinc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that it returns matching codes with names, components, and properties, providing context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail query behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial match) or pagination.

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 structured into three focused paragraphs: definition, use cases, and return information. It is concise with no redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers the return format. It sets correct expectations for what the tool does, though it omits mention of empty results or error handling.

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 100% with both parameters well-described. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states it searches LOINC for lab tests, clinical observations, and measurements using verbs like 'Search', 'Find', 'Look up'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on broad search, but does not explicitly contrast with loinc_details or loinc_answers.

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 lists use cases (e.g., find LOINC codes for lab tests) and provides examples, but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools like loinc_details for detailed code lookup.

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