search_medical_termsSearch clinical term lists by keyword (keyless): system = "conditions" (problem/diagnosis names), "procedures" (procedure names), or "drugs" (RxTerms drug display names).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 15). | |
| query | Yes | Keyword to search. | |
| system | Yes | conditions | procedures | drugs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'keyless' which aligns with openWorldHint but does not provide additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search clinical term lists by keyword') and efficiently adds the permissible systems. No unnecessary words.
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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool. It explains the key customization point (system parameter) without needing to restate schema details.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping the 'system' parameter values to their meanings (conditions=problem/diagnosis names, procedures=procedure names, drugs=RxTerms drug display names), which is not fully captured in the schema's single-line description.
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 clinical term lists by keyword, specifying three specific systems (conditions, procedures, drugs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_icd10 and search_loinc, which target specific code sets.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_icd10 or search_loinc. It does not include any exclusions or context for choosing one system over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
While most tools have detailed descriptions, the large number of similar data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) and overlapping domains (Polymarket, company research, medical) create ambiguity for an agent.
Tool names mix conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase absent, some with 'pipeworx' prefix, others not (bet_research, compare_entities). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
33 tools for a server named 'Medical Codes' is excessive and misaligned. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (finance, prediction markets, general research), making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.
For medical coding, only three tools exist (search_icd10, search_loinc, search_medical_terms). The rest are tangential or unrelated, leaving severe gaps in medical code coverage.