get_patient_lab_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses that it is a retrieval operation. No mention of auth, rate limits, pagination, or behavior for missing data. Lacks depth for safe agent invocation.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear docstring format (Args/Returns). Every sentence contributes meaning, and the formatting enhances readability.

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 complexity of selecting among many sibling tools and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral traits, usage guidance, and sufficient param detail to fully support invocation.

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 compensate. It adds value for the 'date' parameter by specifying format (YYYY-MM-DD) and optional nature, but 'patient_id' is only described as 'The FHIR patient ID', which adds little beyond the parameter name.

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 retrieves laboratory observations for a specific patient, differentiating it from general observations or vital signs. However, it could be more precise by specifying the FHIR category.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_patient_observations or get_patient_vital_signs. The description implies usage for lab results but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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