search_groups

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

Given no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that results are relevance-ranked by the LOINC Search API (same as loinc.org/search UI), that rows are compact for triage, that output is a TOON table capped to a character budget, and that pagination uses 'offset'. This is substantial behavioral context, though it could mention sorting behavior or what facets are for.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with purpose. It wastes no words and is structured logically: definition, usage, behavior, pagination. A slight improvement could be combining the rank and page sentences, but overall effective.

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?

While the description covers purpose and broad behavior, it lacks explanations for most parameters (6 total, 0% schema coverage, no parameter descriptions in description). There is no output schema, so return format is only vaguely described as 'TOON table capped to character budget'. For a tool with this complexity, the description leaves significant 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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter beyond implicit mention of 'query' and 'offset' for pagination. 'rows', 'language', 'sortorder', and 'include_facets' are not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess their semantics from titles alone.

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 tool searches LOINC groups, defines what they are (curated collections of related terms), and contrasts with searching individual terms. The verb 'search' plus resource 'groups' is specific, and the examples ('all glucose measurements') make it concrete.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you want a pre-grouped set of related LOINCs rather than individual terms.' It also provides guidance on reformulating queries if top hits miss, avoiding deep-paging, and suggests calling get_loinc for full records. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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