Find a test by name

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent operation and unambiguously safe to invoke. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it enumerates three possible return states (found, ambiguous, not_found) and gives explicit directives for each, such as asking the user to pick one or offering close suggestions. This is valuable behavioral transparency that surpasses what annotations convey.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a compact list of return statuses. Every sentence contributes necessary operational or decision-making information. There is no filler, redundancy, or verbosity.

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 a single parameter, a rich schema description, a declared output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the tool description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the three possible outcomes and how to respond to each, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's behavior or subsequent steps.

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 provides a highly detailed description of the 'name' parameter, including substring-match semantics, how to strip filler words, and concrete examples. The tool description merely restates 'name or abbreviation' and does not add meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a medical test by name or abbreviation to get its id and details.' This clearly identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from siblings like labloop_list_tests (listing all tests) and labloop_get_test_providers (retrieving providers). The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear contextual usage guidance, such as 'use test.id in later calls', which implies the tool is a prerequisite step for other operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the return-status handling instructions effectively route the agent's next steps. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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