code_crossref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns related codes grouped by system') and data source ('Source: CodeReference DB'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling for a tool that queries medical databases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return format and source details, with no wasted words—every sentence adds value efficiently.

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 tool's moderate complexity (cross-referencing medical codes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by covering purpose, return format, and source, but could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or limitations.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'code' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Cross-reference') and resources ('medical code across ICD-10, CPT, and HCPCS systems'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_lookup or code_validate by emphasizing cross-system mapping rather than single-system lookup or validation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for cross-referencing codes across multiple systems) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like code_lookup, which might handle single-system queries.

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