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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (22 chapters, codes, ranges) and the mapping file for CID-9 to CID-10, helping set expectations about the data. It does not conflict with any annotation.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action and result, the second adds a relevant edge-case about older cubes. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (no parameters, clear output schema), the description covers the essential usage context. The mention of the CID-9 mapping addresses a likely source of confusion for historical data. No critical information appears to be missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe, and the description's focus on output content is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists the 22 ICD-10 chapters with codes and diagnostic ranges, naming the specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_csap_groups by focusing on a distinct resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling. The additional context about CID-9 mapping further clarifies its unique role.

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 contextual usage guidance by noting that 1992–1997 cubes with CID-9 diagnoses use `cid_chapter` as the equivalent ICD-10 chapter and referencing the mapping file. This implies when an agent might need this information, but it stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this tool over other list tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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