Capítulos da CID-10

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns exactly 22 entries, the dataset is static since 2008, and titles are in Portuguese. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise bullet list of use cases, and ends with a short note on version currency. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (22 chapters, code ranges, Portuguese titles) and adds the version caveat. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details since none exist. It instead clarifies what the output contains, which 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the 22 chapters of CID-10 with their code ranges and Portuguese titles.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like cid10_chapter (singular) and icd11_chapters by specifying the CID-10 scope, the count (22), and the output content.

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 'Use this tool to' bullets provide explicit use cases (view top-level structure, map codes to chapters, build navigable TOC). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the appropriate use clear. The guidance is concrete and actionable.

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