map_concept

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns mappings with relationship types and mapping quality, and importantly documents the explicit 'No mappings found' response with mapped=false. This eliminates ambiguity about empty results.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, provides an example, and covers the empty case in just a few sentences. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It adequately explains input (required concept_id, optional target_vocabularies), output behavior (mappings with metadata), and the special case of no mappings. No gaps remain for effective tool invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies that concept_id is the source and that target_vocabularies is a comma-separated list with examples. This enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: mapping FROM a source concept TO equivalent concepts in other vocabularies. It specifies the direction (source to target) and provides an example (SNOMED to ICD10CM), making it easily distinguishable from siblings like explore_concept 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (when cross-vocabulary mappings are needed) and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_concepts or fhir_resolve, leaving some ambiguity for non-expert agents.

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