get_loinc

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that null/empty fields are dropped, lists the types of fields returned, and specifies what content is not included (part hierarchy, language variants). Lacks only explicit mention of authorization or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only detail lookup.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information: what it does, workflow context, and caveats about missing data.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no enums, the description fully covers the needed context: what the tool returns, what it does not, and the workflow in relation to sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'code' as an exact code like '783-1', clarifying the input format beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 'Drill into' and the resource 'one LOINC term by its exact code', distinguishing it from sibling search tools by explicitly positioning it as tier-2 of the search→detail workflow.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: after triaging with search_loincs, then get the code. It also describes what is not in this record and to follow the Link for additional content, guiding the agent on limitations and next steps.

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