get_concept_by_code

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that same code can exist across vocabularies and that multiple matches may be returned. For a simple lookup, this is adequate, though it does not mention exact match behavior or response structure.

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 fluff. Front-loaded with tool purpose, then important details. Every sentence earns its place.

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, description mentions the preferred result (standard_concept='S') but lacks details on return format or edge cases. Still, for a lookup tool, it is reasonably 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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the necessity of both parameters and clarifies ambiguity, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Look up an OMOP concept using a vocabulary-specific code and vocabulary ID.' It specifies verb (look up), resource (OMOP concept), and required parameters, distinguishing it from siblings like search_concepts or get_concept.

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?

Description explains that both parameters are required to avoid ambiguity and provides concrete example (E11 in ICD10CM and ICD10). It advises preferring standard_concept='S' when multiple matches exist. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, it provides clear context for its use.

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