get_cdashig_field_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals default behavior for version selection and include_codelist, explains what include_codelist does, and describes the returned dict structure. It does not mention errors or authentication, but for a read-only metadata lookup the stated behavior is clear enough.

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 well structured and appropriately sized: a one-line summary, per-parameter Args, a Returns section, and a concrete example. Every part earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of 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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the definition provides defaults, optional-behavior explanations, return field names, and an example. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without external context.

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%, and the Args section compensates well by explaining each parameter, giving concrete examples, and stating defaults. However, headers_ is described as a dict in the description while the schema declares it as a string, which is a confusing type mismatch and prevents a perfect score.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-object sentence 'Get detailed metadata for a specific CDASH field' and further details the returned metadata in the Returns section. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling variable-detail tools for SDTM, ADaM, and SEND.

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 establishes clear usage context by specifying the target resource and explaining optional fallback behavior such as searching common domains when domain is omitted and using the latest version when cdashig_version is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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