cid10_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: diacritic-insensitive search, return of categories/subcategories, and the specific version (CID-10 V2008). No contradictions with annotations.

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 two well-structured paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action and examples. It is efficient with no wasted words, though slightly verbose in listing use cases. Could be tightened slightly but still excellent.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and the annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: version, language, diacritic behavior, distinctions from sibling tool, and common use cases. Completely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have clear descriptions). The description adds only minor value beyond schema (e.g., diacritic-insensitive search for 'query'), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 searches Brazilian CID-10 by Portuguese text, provides specific examples (infarto, diabetes), and distinguishes from sibling icd11_search by specifying the exact revision and language context.

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?

Explicitly describes use cases (billing, epidemiology, documentation) and provides a direct alternative: for international ICD-11 use icd11_search. The description clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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