cid10_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing input flexibility (accepts dotted/undotted forms), canonical output behavior, and the optional gender/cause-of-death flags. This enriches agent understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description is compact (two short paragraphs + bullet list) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then lists use cases, and finally a key detail about input formats. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no complex side effects), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what it does, when to use it, input format flexibility, and return characteristics (Portuguese name, flags). An output schema exists for further format details, so the description is 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 single parameter 'code' is fully described in the schema (pattern, description). The description reiterates the dotted/undotted acceptance, adding no new parameter-level constraints or semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves CID-10 codes to Portuguese names, with specific examples ("I21" → "Infarto agudo do miocárdio") and scope (3-char categories, 4-char subcategories, restriction flags). The verb 'look up' and resource 'CID-10 code' are precise, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like cid10_search (which likely searches by name) by focusing on code lookup.

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?

Bullet-pointed use cases (resolve code, confirm existence, retrieve flags) provide clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for fuzzy search) or contrast with alternatives like cid10_search. This omission prevents a perfect score.

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