get_sdtm_variable_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains defaults, such as searching common domains when domain is omitted and using the latest version when sdtmig_version is not provided, and describes the return value. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only metadata lookup the provided detail is solid.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by an organized parameter list and a helpful example. It is somewhat verbose with the docstring-style format, but every section earns its place and no irrelevant content is included.

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 metadata lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: all parameters are explained, return contents are listed, and defaults are specified. It could be more complete with explicit sibling differentiation and examples of response structure, but it gives an agent sufficient detail to call the tool correctly.

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 fully for the lack of parameter documentation. It does so by explaining each parameter, providing concrete examples for variable and sdtmig_version, stating defaults for domain and include_codelist, and clarifying headers_ as custom API headers. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Get detailed metadata') for a specific resource ('a specific SDTM variable'), which identifies the tool's core purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_adam_variable_details and get_sendig_variable_details because it explicitly names SDTM, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: an agent would use this when it needs metadata for an SDTM variable. However, there are no explicit instructions about when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_sdtm_domain_structure or search_cdisc_library, and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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