code_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns warnings and errors,' which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'correctness' and 'context' validation. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose and validation criteria, and a second sentence covers the return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (medical code validation with context), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'warnings and errors' entail, how validation works, or prerequisites. For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 33% (only 'code' has a description), so the description must compensate. It doesn't add parameter details beyond what's implied by 'medical code' and 'context.' The description mentions 'context' validation but doesn't explain how the 'context' parameter relates to it. With low schema coverage, this provides minimal additional value.

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: 'Validate a medical code for correctness, active status, and context.' It specifies the verb (validate) and resource (medical code) with three validation criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'code_crossref' or 'code_lookup' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'code_crossref', 'code_lookup', and 'code_reimbursement', there's no indication of when validation is preferred over other code-related operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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