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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds that it is keyless, offline, uses CMS FY2026 data, and returns a list of code-description objects. It does not mention potential edge cases like pagination or rate limits, but the provided context is sufficient given the annotation baseline.

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, front-loads the core action, and organizes extra details in parentheticals. The example is integrated naturally and does not introduce redundancy, keeping the text focused and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: query formats, optional limit, a sample response, and a clear distinction from the diagnosis counterpart. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, including the 'all words must appear' rule and the 1-100 limit. The description reinforces this with a concrete example of a code prefix query and an output example, adding practical clarity without increasing semantic coverage.

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 searches ICD-10-PCS inpatient procedure codes by keyword or code prefix. It provides concrete examples and explicitly distinguishes itself from the diagnosis-focused search_icd10 sibling.

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?

It explicitly mentions that diagnoses should use search_icd10, while PCS is for procedures, giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over a direct alternative. The examples of keyword and code prefix queries also illustrate appropriate usage.

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