enabiz_get_radiology_image_link

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds beyond annotations: it returns a URL (not binary), requires authenticated session, and gives the exact error message on auth failure. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, how to get input, auth requirement. No wasted words.

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 (not shown but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input source, output type, auth requirement, and error condition. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has only one parameter (accession_number) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that the value comes from enabiz_list_radiology_studies and is only filled for studies with images. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns a DICOM viewer link (URL) for a radiological examination, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like enabiz_get_radiology_report and enabiz_list_radiology_studies by mentioning the output type (URL vs report) and data source.

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 explicitly tells the agent to source the accession_number from enabiz_list_radiology_studies output and notes that it only returns a link for studies with images. It also specifies authentication is required and mentions the error on auth failure. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context implies it.

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