find_authorized_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It includes several behavioral flags such as verify_current_official_source and does_not_confirm_current_acceptance, which disclose important limitations. However, these are presented as bare booleans without explanation of what they mean operationally, and the description does not describe the tool's behavior such as output format or side effects. The privacy restriction adds some context but is not enough to elevate the score.

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 short and starts with the main purpose, which is good. However, it appends a series of flags and a Chinese sentence without clear structure or integration, making it a bit cluttered. It is not overly verbose but could be more organized and concise by explaining the flags or folding them into the narrative.

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 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the output will be, or when this tool is appropriate. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of parameter and usage guidance. The caveats are present but not elaborated, leaving an agent with insufficient context to make a correct call.

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 explain the parameters. The description does not mention 'query' or 'city' at all, providing no guidance on their format, semantics, or required values. This is a critical gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Find CDC recognized-lab rows.' It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like search_lab_code or get_lab_scope, which also involve lab-related lookups, so it loses a point for lacking sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes caveats like decision_support_only and not_validated_for_hospital_deployment, but these are limitations, not usage directions. The Chinese phrase '不得輸入病人資料' (do not enter patient data) is a restriction but not a usage guideline, and there is no mention of scenarios or comparison to sibling tools.

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