get_condition_progression

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already cover safety and open-world behavior. The description adds that paths are 'potential' and gives an example, which is useful but does not disclose return format, limitations, or how incomplete matches are handled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and an illustrative example. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup, the description gives enough context: it states the input purpose, the kind of output (potential progression paths), and an example. It doesn't specify pagination or formatting, but that's not necessary for this simple call.

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% since the only parameter, snomedCode, is described. The description does little beyond confirming the condition is identified by a SNOMED CT code, so it mostly relies on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get information about how a skin condition can progress') and gives a concrete example ('dysplastic nevus to melanoma'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_condition_risk_factors by focusing on progression paths.

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 such as lookup_medical_concept, get_condition_risk_factors, or search_medical_info. No selection criteria or exclusions are given.

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