lookup_icd10

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup operation, which is adequate, but does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication requirements, result formatting, or rate limits. For a simple lookup, the minimal disclosure is acceptable but lacks richness.

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?

Single sentence of ten words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and input methods. No wasted words or redundancy. Highly 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential use case: looking up codes by code or search term. It does not specify what the output contains (e.g., full diagnosis details, list of results), which is a minor gap, but the core functionality is clear.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description's phrase 'by code or search term' mirrors the schema but does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 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 the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'ICD-10 diagnosis codes', specifying two distinct input methods (by code or search term). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_cpt or lookup_modifier which deal with different code types.

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 context of the sibling tools (all are lookup tools for different medical code types) implies this tool is appropriate when querying ICD-10 codes. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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