map_concept

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

Discloses response structure: 'Returns cross-vocabulary mappings with relationship types and mapping quality.' Also reveals edge case behavior: 'If no mappings exist, the response explicitly states "No mappings found" with mapped=false — never returns ambiguous empty results.' Pagination behavior is disclosed in detail. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add valuable behavioral and usage details. It repeats pagination guidance already in the schema, but the whole description remains readable.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what the tool does, how to use it, empty-result behavior, and pagination. It gives enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly. It also provides a practical example.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds a concrete example and clarifies the directionality of concept_id ('always the SOURCE — results show what it maps TO'). This reinforces the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Find mappings FROM a source concept TO equivalent concepts in other vocabularies' — specific verb, resource, and direction. The example with SNOMED to ICD10CM further clarifies. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_similar_concepts' (similarity vs exact mappings).

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?

Provides concrete example usage (SNOMED concept_id filtered by target_vocabularies='ICD10CM') and explicit pagination instructions ('keep incrementing page until has_more is false'). It does not explicitly name alternatives but clearly describes when this tool is appropriate for cross-vocabulary mapping lookup.

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