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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing that language selection uses WHO's official translations and is never machine-translated, and it discloses that results include codes, titles, and relevance scores.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence, followed by a concise bullet list of use cases and a focused note on language behavior. It is appropriately sized with minimal redundancy, though the second bullet repeats some of the first sentence's content.

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 output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context for invoking the tool correctly: it explains search intent, language behavior, and result contents. It does not fully address how this tool relates to similar ICD-11 siblings like icd11_hierarchy or icd11_lookup, which is a minor completeness gap for selection.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in detail. The description adds a helpful example for the language parameter ('pt' returns official Portuguese labels) and reinforces the official-translation guarantee, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's existing parameter explanations.

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 specific verb and resource: it searches for medical conditions, diseases, and health problems in ICD-11. It also lists concrete use cases such as finding ICD-11 codes and searching by keyword. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like icd11_lookup, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to find ICD-11 codes for diagnoses, search for diseases by name or keyword, and look up conditions in multiple languages.' It gives practical guidance on language selection with an example, but it does not mention exclusions or when to prefer an alternative such as icd11_lookup.

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