get_concept_by_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: the requirement for both parameters, the possibility of multiple concepts sharing the same code within a vocabulary, and the recommendation to prefer standard concepts. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long with no superfluous content. It front-loads the action and then provides essential guidance, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 what results to expect (list of matching concepts) and how to handle duplicates. It is complete for a simple lookup tool, though it could mention active concepts or field details.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description reinforces why both are required and explains the ambiguity scenario, adding semantic value beyond the schema examples.

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's purpose: 'Look up an OMOP concept using a vocabulary-specific code and vocabulary ID.' It specifies the resource (OMOP concept) and the action (look up by code), distinguishing it from siblings like get_concept (by ID) and search_concepts (text search).

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 both parameters are required to avoid ambiguity and gives an example ('E11' in ICD10CM vs ICD10). It also advises preferring standard_concept='S' when multiple matches occur. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, the context is clear for agents.

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