lookup_lab_test

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, prerequisites, or error handling. The description carries the full burden but adds no behavioral context beyond the basic lookup action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or trivial content.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information about the return format (e.g., plain text, structured data, links). Although the task is simple, the description could be more complete by clarifying what the output contains. The current version is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions using a LOINC code. Since schema coverage is high, 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 the verb 'look up', the resource 'MedlinePlus lab-test information', and the method 'using a LOINC code'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lookup_medication, lookup_diagnosis, lookup_procedure, and medlineplus_connect by specifying the type of information and the required identifier.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies that this tool is for lab tests with LOINC codes, but does not mention alternatives or situations where other siblings might be better. Usage context is minimal.

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