Convert SNOMED CT codes into ICD-10 diagnosis codes for clear official classification.
Map a SNOMED CT code to ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Useful for understanding official diagnosis classifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snomedCode | Yes | SNOMED CT code to map |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the read-only nature and potential incompleteness of mappings. The description adds only a minor note about 'official' classifications, which does not meaningfully extend behavioral context. It is consistent with the annotations but does not disclose additional behaviors such as output format or edge cases.
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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core action and target are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a brief use case. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior), the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the primary function and a typical use case. However, it does not describe the return format or note that some SNOMED codes may not map, though these are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 description for 'snomedCode' ('SNOMED CT code to map') is complete, covering 100% of the parameter. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Map') and resource ('SNOMED CT code to ICD-10 diagnosis codes'). This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like lookup_medical_concept or search_medical_concepts, which focus on retrieving concepts rather than cross-coding. The purpose is immediately clear.
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 a mild usage hint ('Useful for understanding official diagnosis classifications') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated, leaving the agent to infer when mapping is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.