find_omop_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns candidate concepts or error information, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It is adequate but not thorough for a lookup tool.

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 relatively short but includes redundant bullet-like formatting and whitespace. It could be more concise by combining the argument list into a sentence. The structure is acceptable but not efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format as a dict with candidate concepts or error info. However, it lacks details on the structure of each candidate, pagination, or how to interpret results. For a tool that returns multiple candidates, more context on the output would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description lists parameter names (keyword, omop_table, omop_field, max_results) but does not add meaningful context beyond the names, such as valid table/field values, format examples, or the purpose of max_results. This is insufficient for a tool with four parameters.

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 finds OMOP concepts for a given keyword, table, and field. It specifies the action (Find), resource (OMOP concepts), and context (keyword, table, field). The sibling tool 'batch_map_concepts_from_csv' implies a batch/CSV input, so this tool is distinct as a single lookup.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning multiple candidates for the LLM to choose, which hints at a decision-making use case, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tool (batch_map_concepts_from_csv).

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