get_condition_progression

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the read-only nature ('Get information', 'Shows') and the general output shape ('potential progression paths'), but it omits possible return details such as how paths are structured, what happens for unknown SNOMED codes, and any auth or failure considerations.

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 short and readable with a useful concrete example. There is a slight redundancy between 'how a skin condition can progress' and 'Shows potential progression paths', but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter with a fully documented input schema, so the description does not need to cover much. The 'potential progression paths' statement, plus the example, gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note about the expected return structure would make it marginally more complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter, snomedCode, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no new semantics about the parameter beyond the schema's clear declaration that it is a SNOMED CT code.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get information about how a skin condition can progress') and gives an illustrative output example ('dysplastic nevus to melanoma'). It is distinct enough from nearby siblings like get_condition_risk_factors, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 implies this tool should be used when someone asks how a condition can progress over time, rather than for risk factors, diagnoses, or general medical lookups. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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