get_concept

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

The description lists fields returned but does not mention error handling (e.g., missing concept_id), rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the main purpose, and ends with clear usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return fields adequately. Could mention that concept_id must exist or what happens if not found, but overall sufficient.

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 schema already fully describes the concept_id parameter, and the description simply repeats its purpose without adding new semantic context. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed information about an OMOP concept by concept_id, listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like search_concepts that find concepts by other criteria.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when you already have a concept_id and need its details,' giving a clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list provides those tools.

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