search_lab_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly: it discloses fixed top-5 returns, summary-only records, raw official text (not AI instructions), a decision-support-only profile, and invalidity for claims/hospital deployment. This goes well beyond what the name and schema reveal.

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?

Most clauses carry useful information, especially routing and safety constraints. However, the description is a dense run-on paragraph mixing pseudo-annotation flags, Chinese, and English, with the jargon opening 'NHI full-table compatibility alias.' It is compact but not well-structured or especially readable.

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, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers safety profile, result limits, pagination alternatives, and output nature. The only substantive gap is query parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single query parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must explain what to put in it. It only adds a negative constraint ('do not enter patient data') and an implied full-table search. It does not state whether query is a lab code, partial match, exact code, or free-text, leaving the agent to guess the accepted input format.

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 opening phrase 'NHI full-table compatibility alias' names a resource but never explicitly states the search verb; the tool name carries the core meaning. The rest of the description focuses on constraints, return limits, and alternatives rather than clearly saying 'this tool searches lab codes.' It is not a tautology, but the purpose is mostly inferred.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: decision_support_only, not_validated_for_hospital_deployment, not_for_claim_determination, and 'do not enter patient data.' It also names alternatives with conditions: use search_payment_items to paginate beyond 5 results, and use get_payment_rule/get_points for full details. This is strong routing and exclusion guidance.

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