lookup_medical_concept

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the tool returns 'detailed information about skin conditions including severity and category,' but it does not explain what happens for non-skin concepts, invalid codes, or what 'detailed' means. The description also ambiguously blends 'medical concept' with 'skin conditions,' creating potential misdirection.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core value stated first. The final sentence adds marginal value and is slightly redundant, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a reasonable starting point but leaves key behaviors unclear: whether non-skin SNOMED codes work, what fields the return contains, and whether any errors or empty results can occur. An agent relying solely on this description could under- or over-expect its usefulness.

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%, and the example value ('372244006' for melanoma) adds helpful context. However, the description adds no further meaning beyond 'by SNOMED code,' so it does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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 identifies a clear action ('look up') and a specific resource ('medical concept by SNOMED CT code'). It differentiates from the search-like siblings by requiring an exact SNOMED code, though it narrows the results to skin conditions without explaining why, which weakens precision.

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 only usage guidance is the generic sentence 'Use this to provide accurate medical terminology,' which does not explain when to choose this tool over nearby alternatives like search_medical_concepts or map_snomed_to_icd10. No context, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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