find_similar_concepts

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 describes the three algorithms and their trade-offs, and notes the default algorithm and threshold. However, it omits details on permissions, rate limits, result format, or side effects.

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 long due to multiple algorithms but is well-structured, starting with purpose and then listing algorithms. It is efficiently written with no redundancy, earning a score of 4.

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 has 8 parameters, 3 algorithms, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides sufficient guidance including algorithm comparisons and a domain-specific tip. It is complete enough for agent selection.

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%, but description adds value by explaining the one-of requirement, algorithm selection criteria, and a vocabulary-specific tip. This goes beyond the schema, warranting a score above baseline 3.

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 medical concepts similar to a reference concept, name, or query, and lists three algorithms with specific use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning exploring related concepts, finding alternative codes, or building phenotype sets.

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 says when to use the tool (explore related concepts, find alternative codes, build phenotype sets) and provides tips (drug vocabularies). However, it lacks explicit exclusion or contrast with sibling tools like search_concepts or semantic_search.

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