search_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the search scope and return fields, but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or error handling. The schema covers pagination parameters, but the description could explicitly note that results are paginated and sorted.

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 plus examples, all front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema, the description explains return fields adequately. It covers search scope, input examples, and output structure. It could briefly mention that filters and pagination are available (already in schema), but the description is largely complete for a search tool.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds examples of search terms but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 searches for medical concepts by name/synonym/term across OHDSI vocabularies, and returns specific fields. It gives a usage hint and examples, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_concept (which retrieves by ID) and get_concept_by_code. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 includes a clear use case: 'Use this when you need to find the OMOP concept ID for a medical term.' This provides direct guidance. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the intended search scenario.

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