search

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 reinforces this by naming C-FIND/QIDO-RS, which tells the agent the query goes out to a remote DICOM node. It says nothing about failure behavior, empty results, cost of broad queries, or how paging interacts with large result sets.

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 resource scope first and the protocol qualifier second; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 does not need to cover return values or parameters. However, for a six-parameter, open-world query tool sitting among sixteen siblings, the absence of selection guidance against retrieve/get_metadata leaves a real gap.

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 node, level, limit, offset, filters, and return_fields are all documented in the schema including a filter example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond repeating the level names, 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?

The description states a specific verb (search) and enumerates the resource levels it queries (patients, studies, series, instances), plus names the underlying protocols (C-FIND/QIDO-RS). It is clearly distinct from siblings like retrieve or move, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_metadata, which also reads DICOM attributes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose search over retrieve, move, or get_metadata, and no mention of prerequisites such as a node already being configured via list_nodes. The only routing hint ('see list_nodes') lives in the schema, not the description.

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