Buscar na CID-10

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent; description adds meaningful behavior: diacritic-insensitive matching, category/subcategory granularity, and the V2008 version being searched. These are not in the schema/annotations and help set expectations. No contradiction.

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 organized with a lead sentence, bullet list, and closing behavioral note. Each segment earns its place (examples, version, diacritics), with no 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 output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, version, and behavior—everything an agent needs to decide to invoke vs. select an alternative.

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?

Input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (query minLength, level enum, max_results range). Description reiterates the level concept (categories/subcategories) but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the Brazilian CID-10 ... by Portuguese text.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming the ICD-11 alternative, making the tool's scope (Brazilian/Portuguese) unmistakable.

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?

Lists concrete use cases (SUS/ANVISA contexts, official translation lookup, billing/epidemiology) and explicitly states when NOT to use it: for ICD-11, use icd11_search instead.

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