explore_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregated nature (combines three operations), and labels itself as an overview tool, but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or potential for large responses. The verb 'Get' implies safety, but not explicitly.

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 sentences, first is a clear statement of function and components; second gives usage guidance. No redundant words or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is complex with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the combined nature and the overview scope, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks a detailed explanation of the response structure or any explicit limitations on result size beyond parameter descriptions, so not fully 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 coverage is 100%, with thorough parameter descriptions including defaults and ranges. The main description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema fully compensates, so baseline 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 uses specific verb 'Get', resource 'medical concept', and clearly enumerates the three components (detailed info, ancestors/descendants, mappings). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by recommending replacing get_concept + get_hierarchy + map_concept, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Use this instead of calling get_concept + get_hierarchy + map_concept separately' and provides ideal use cases ('Ideal for understanding...'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also indirectly says this is an overview tool, with additional exclusion note in the mappings_page_size parameter description recommending map_concept for complete code lists.

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