map_snomed_to_icd10

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool performs a mapping/lookup, implying a non-mutating operation. Still, it does not describe behavior around invalid codes, missing mappings, or whether multiple ICD-10 codes are returned, which would be useful.

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 with the core mapping statement first. The second sentence adds some context but is slightly vague and could be omitted. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter mapping tool, the description captures the primary action and output type. There is no output schema, but the expected result (ICD-10 diagnosis codes) is directly in the first sentence. Some edge-case behavior is not covered, but the tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the schema already contains 'SNOMED CT code to map'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'SNOMED CT code'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('SNOMED CT code to ICD-10 diagnosis codes'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling medical lookup and search tools, as none of the siblings perform this code-mapping function.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding official diagnosis classifications' gives a general use context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_medical_concepts or lookup_medical_concept, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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