oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing the return format ('all parameters measured on both dates with change direction, absolute delta, percentage change, and out-of-range flags'), which clarifies what the tool does beyond basic comparison. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second detailing the return format, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values, making it well-rounded for the context.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'date_a' is 'typically the earlier measurement' and 'date_b' is 'typically the later measurement', providing context and usage hints that are not captured in the schema's bare string types.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('compare lab values') and resources ('between two dates side-by-side'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_labs' or 'get_lab_time_series' by focusing on side-by-side comparison rather than analysis or time-series retrieval.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'typically the earlier measurement' and 'typically the later measurement' for date parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_labs' or 'get_lab_trends', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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