get_adam_variable_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only lookup, and it explicitly states the default ADaMIG version and the returned dictionary contents. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple metadata lookup it is appropriately transparent.

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 efficiently structured with Purpose, Args, Usage, and Returns sections, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The usage examples add value, though the Returns line partly repeats the initial metadata list, creating slight redundancy.

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 low-complexity lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential operational information: what it returns, which parameter is required, what the version default is, and how to call it. It could be more complete by naming sibling alternatives for SDTM/SEND variable metadata, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for adam_variable (with ADaM-specific examples) and adamig_version (accepted formats and default). The headers_ parameter is not mentioned, which is a minor gap, but the two operational parameters are well documented with usage examples.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('ADaM variable metadata'), with concrete output fields (label, datatype, codelists). The 'ADaM' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling SDTM/SEND variable-detail tools without needing to open schemas.

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 clearly implies use for ADaM variable metadata and provides usage examples, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like get_sdtm_variable_details or search_cdisc_library. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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