Get MyChart Test Result Details

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the need for a logged-in session, the return format including a truncated flag, and the fallback to download for full PDFs. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand operational requirements and limitations.

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-organized with separate sections for the main purpose, arguments, and return value. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the input source, session requirement, return fields, and truncation handling. It even references the relevant sibling tool for complete PDFs, making it self-contained.

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 input schema already provides a full description of result_id, and the description's Args section repeats the same information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning to the parameter beyond what is already structured.

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 opens one test result and returns full readable content including component values, reference ranges, flags, and provider comments. It distinguishes from siblings like mychart_list_test_results and mychart_download_test_result by focusing on a single result's detailed readable text.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a logged-in session and points to mychart_download_test_result as an alternative when truncated is true. It also references mychart_list_test_results as the source for result IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus listing or downloading in all cases, though the context is clear.

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