map_concept

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses directionality, response format for empty results (explicit 'No mappings found' with mapped=false), and that it returns cross-vocabulary mappings with relationship types and mapping quality. It does not mention potential rate limits or permissions, but the tool appears read-only.

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, with a clear purpose statement, behavior details, and a helpful example. No extraneous information.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior on empty results, and an example. No gaps.

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% but the description adds significant meaning: concept_id is always source, target_vocabularies is comma-separated with examples, and omitting it shows all mappings. This clarifies usage 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 finds mappings FROM a source concept TO equivalent concepts in other vocabularies. It specifies directionality (source always) and provides an example with SNOMED to ICD10CM, distinguishing it from siblings like explore_concept or search_concepts.

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?

It explains the directionality and filtering by target_vocabularies, including an example. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the example provides clear guidance on usage.

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