search_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool returns matching concepts with their key attributes. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, sorting order, or potential rate limits. For a read-like search, it is adequate but not fully transparent about the full set of behaviors.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance and examples. Every word is meaningful, front-loaded with essential information, and no redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 6-parameter complexity and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, filtering options, and usage context. It omits explicit mention of pagination (but schema covers page/page_size) and output format, but the return fields listed suffice. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., 'type 2 diabetes', 'SNOMED', 'Condition') and clarifying the primary use case. The examples help ground parameter usage, though the schema itself is already clear.

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 it searches for medical concepts in OHDSI vocabularies by name/synonym, returning concept IDs and details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_concept' or 'explore_concept' by specifying the use case: finding OMOP concept IDs for a medical term, with concrete examples.

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 advises to use this tool when finding a concept ID for a medical term, providing examples. While it doesn't list when not to use or directly name alternatives, the sibling list implies there are separate tools for hierarchies or similarity searches, and the description's focus on name-based search implicitly sets boundaries.

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