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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations by noting that the ICD-10 → ICD-11 version reads live from the bundled dataset while other metadata is maintained with the release. It also clarifies that some bundled data is frozen at specific versions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bulleted use cases, and a final note on filter behavior and data freshness. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section adds useful context.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers returned fields, filtering, use cases, data versions, and the distinction between live and static metadata.

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 100%, and the description repeats the same key behavior: pass `terminology` to filter, omit to get all 8. No new parameter-level meaning is added, but the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter and its enum values.

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: listing version metadata (version, release date, publisher, source URL, update cadence) for every terminology the server queries. It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling lookup/search tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 concrete use cases for pipeline maintainers and explains when to pass the optional filter versus returning all 8 entries. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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