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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the tool performs a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the fields shown and the preparatory role before reading entries. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as language handling or error conditions; the trailing 'norm.' is cryptic and unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and usage in a compact way. The 'norm.' fragment at the end is unclear and slightly detracts from the otherwise efficient structure.

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 fetch-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the trigger condition. But it omits any detail about the lang parameter's effect on the returned record, and the meaning of 'norm.' is ambiguous. An agent can invoke it correctly using the schema for concept_id, but the undefined lang behavior leaves a gap.

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 only 50%: concept_id has a description referencing i14y.list_concepts, but lang has no description. The tool description does not clarify the lang parameter at all, and the field list it provides describes the output, not the parameters. It therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameter.

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 ('Show'), a resource ('one concept's record'), and enumerates the returned fields ('type, value type, version, validity'). This clearly distinguishes it from i14y.list_concepts, which lists many concepts, and i14y.search_codelist_entries, which searches entries.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'use before reading a code list's entries.' This gives clear contextual guidance for invocation, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. The sibling list_concepts is implicitly the counterpart for discovery.

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