get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — no pixel transfer and use of WADO-RS metadata/C-FIND against a remote node — but does not mention that results are capped by the limit default of 50 or how truncation is signalled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the key constraint second. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy against the schema.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the description needn't explain return values. It is nearly complete for a read tool; the only meaningful gap is not warning that the limit parameter can truncate a large study's instance list.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented (including the series_uid dependency for sop_instance_uid). The description adds nothing about the study/series/instance narrowing hierarchy or the fields/limit semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read instance-level metadata') and scopes it with 'without downloading pixel data', which separates it from the pixel-fetching siblings. It stops short of naming 'retrieve' explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 'without downloading pixel data' clause implies you should call this when you only need attributes rather than images, and the parenthetical 'WADO-RS metadata or C-FIND' hints at the two backends. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing decision.

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