search_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (IDs, names, vocabulary, domain, standard status) and the search scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'search'), how pagination works, or any limitations on search behavior. This is adequate for a search tool but leaves some gaps.

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, with two sentences and a list of examples, and it front-loads the primary purpose. The structure is efficient and easy to scan. However, there is a typographical issue ('OHCPD' instead of likely 'OHDSI'), which slightly undermines clarity and precision.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a search tool: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. It provides examples and relies on the well-documented schema for parameter details. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of return fields is important. It could be improved by stating default sorting or pagination behavior, but for a straightforward search/filter tool, it is largely complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, including descriptions for query, page, page_size, domain_ids, vocabulary_ids, and standard_concept. The tool description adds example queries but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: searching for medical concepts across standardized vocabularies by name, synonym, or clinical term. It specifies the resource (OMOP concepts) and the action (search), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_concept or get_concept_by_code by emphasizing term-based lookup and the return of concept IDs and metadata. The examples ('type 2 diabetes', 'metformin 500mg') further clarify the intended use.

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 says 'Use this when you need to find the OMOP concept ID for a medical term,' which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is stated. This is sufficient but lacks the exclusionary guidance seen in the calibration example.

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