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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the data source (NLM Clinical Tables), pricing, and HTTP method (GET), which reinforces the read-only nature.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source and cost details. The leading 'ICD-10-CM search:' phrase somewhat repeats the title, but the rest of the sentence earns its place with concrete functional and operational information.

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 simple search tool with comprehensive parameter schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what is searched, how, and operational details. The main missing piece is what happens if neither q nor code is supplied, but this is minor given the optional parameter schema.

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 already provides full coverage for all three parameters with examples and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond mentioning search by term or code; it does not further explain the relationship between q and code or maxList behavior.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes'), and it indicates the two search modes: by term or by code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other data domains.

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 conveys what the tool searches and how, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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